Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Manchester Ship Canal (Superannuation) Bill.

Bill committed.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

London County Council (General Powers) Bill [Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Montrose Bridge Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOODSTUFFS.

SHORT WEIGHT.

Mr. W. BAKER: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to prevent the increased use of automatic
counter scales having a prejudicial effect upon the public by facilitating short weight, he will appoint a Committee to examine the Weights and Measures Act with a view to improved safeguarding Regulations?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have no evidence that the particular type of machine to which the question relates has the effect suggested. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on the 23rd February. In the circumstances, I see no need for the appointment of a Committee of the kind proposed.

Colonel DAY: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if it is intended to introduce a Bill embodying the proposals of the Food Council in regard to short weight or measure in the sale of foodstuffs and oral misrepresentations of weight or measure?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government have considered the recommendations of the Food Council on short weight; and what action they propose to take?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Government have considered the Report of the Food Council, and accept generally the recommendations made in that Report. They propose to prepare and introduce legislation based thereon.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the legislation will be introduced?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I cannot say that.

Mr. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that every facility will be given to his Bill, and that opinion on the Matter is pretty well unanimous?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but it necessarily depends on the facilities which he gives to other Bills what progress I can make with this one. I hope there will be complete unanimity in favour of it.

WASTE.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the desirability of legisla-
tion making it a penal offence for anyone to allow fresh food, fit for human consumption, to rot; and whether, in any case, he will make inquiries into the possibility of such a course?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I shall be prepared to receive any evidence which my hon. Friend can supply as to the existence of such a practice, and to consider whether such evidence would justify the introduction of legislation.

Colonel APPLIN: Is it not the fact that fish and fruit are wasted in that way, in order that there shall not be a glut on the market?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I want to have evidence rather than mere statements, and one must consider the question of practicability.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: If the President of the Board of Trade cared to go to any fishing centre he would see any amount of fish being wasted there by being thrown overboard or turned into refuse.

COLD STORAGE.

Mr. HAYDAY: 91.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has any information that the great food-producing and distributing trades are making any arrangements to provide additional cold storage in the depot, the shop, and the home, in view of his Regulations in the prohibition of certain preservatives; and whether he proposes to take any steps to meet the difficulty?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend thinks it may be assumed that the provision of any additional cold storage which may be necessary will engage the attention of the trades concerned. In reply to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given on Thursday last to the hon. Members for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Spoor) and North-West Camberwell (Mr. Campbell).

ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.

Colonel DAY: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of belated reparation claims made since 1st June, 1924?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The number of claims notified since 1st June, 1924, is 2,524.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these claims are receiving speedy attention?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir; as I understand, these were belated claims, which were ruled out.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Has the right hon. Gentleman received from the Public Accounts Committee the amount received from Germany in respect of loss of property?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would like the hon. Gentleman to give me notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

ZINC OXIDE.

Mr. PENNY: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the large amount of zinc oxide being dumped into this country from America and Germany at about the same price, in the case of America as that country is prepared to sell us the raw material (spelter), and at a price in the case of Germany of about £8 per ton less than the figure quoted in that country; and whether he will, by legislative action, safe guard the British manufacturer against such competition?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The imports of zinc oxide from the United States have recently shown a considerable increase, and complaints have reached me as to the price at which it is being sold in this country. If imported zinc oxide is being sold here at prices below the cost of production in the country of manufacture, it is open to the British interests concerned to apply under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, for the imposition of an anti-dumping duty.

ARTIFICIAL SILK (LEIPZIG EXHIBITION).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that British and other foreign manufacturers of artificial silk are precluded from exhibiting samples at the Leipzig Fair this month; and whether he will draw the attention of the Leipzig
Fair authorities to the usual practice of such international fairs of permitting and encouraging exhibits from all countries without restriction?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I understand that British and other foreign manufacturers of artificial silk are precluded from exhibiting at the German Artificial Silk Exhibition, which it to be held at Leipzig shortly, though I have no official information on the subject. With regard to the second part of the question, it is within the discretion of the organisers of an exhibition to admit or exclude foreign participation. I understand that the exhibition in question is not an integral part of the Leipzig Fair, but I am making inquiries and will communicate further with my hon. Friend.

Mr. HARRIS: Are foreign manufacturers prohibited from exhibiting at our British Industries Fair? Is it like for like?

Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir.

Mr. MACLEAN: Were any firms precluded from exhibiting at the British Industries Fair, either at Birmingham or in London?

Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir; it is part of the understanding that all goods sold at this fair should be British.

Mr. MACLEAN: Why, then, does the Minister expect that other countries are not going to give the same treatment to British firms?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister cannot be responsible for the form in which the question is put down.

SAIL-MAKERS' NEEDLES.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that certain Eastern markets are being supplied with sail-makers' needles made in Japan and marked with the name of a well-known firm of needle makers of Redditch, Worcestershire, labels being attached stating that the needles are manufactured by the firm in question in England, and that, as a consequence of this practice, loss is being caused to the manufacturers and work-
people employed in the needle industry in Worcestershire; and will he take action, by representation to the Government of Japan, to put a stop to this imitation of business names and labels which is at present going on?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The case to which my hon. Friend is referring was brought to the notice of the Redditch firm concerned by the Department of Overseas Trade. I am in communication with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in regard to the case.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not casting a reflection on the commercial honesty of our Allies?

APPLEBY IRON COMPANY (TRADE FACILITIES GUARANTEE).

Sir PARK GOFF: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with reference to the recent decision of the Trade Facilities Act Committee to provide a guarantee of £650,000 for the extension of the works of the Appleby Iron Company, the matter was submitted to him before the Trade Facilities Act Committee approved the guarantee; and whether, seeing that the productive capacity of rolling-mill plant already in existence exceeds the actual requirements at the moment or the estimated requirements for some years to come, this matter can be reconsidered?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend was aware of the scheme, but the guarantee was given, as usual, on the recommendation of the Trade Facilities Committee. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. At the present moment there are large imports of foreign steel into this country, and if, by cheaper production resulting from modern equipment, we can reduce these imports, I think it will be for the general advantage.

Sir P. GOFF: Is it not the fact that evidence was given before the Imperial Research Committee, in reference to the heavy steel trade, to the effect that the production of steel, and particularly of steel plates, is far in excess of the demand?

Mr. McNEILL: I should not like to make a statement with regard to the evidence without having had an opportunity of reading it.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: Are there not many mills of the newest construction and with the most modern plants standing idle for want of orders, and what advantage will it be to put up other new plants?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is for debate.

FOOTWEAR.

Mr. FORREST: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it has been suggested to him that on all footwear sold in this country an analysis of the article should be stamped; and whether, in the public interest, he will give the fullest consideration to any such proposal?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand that the Joint Industrial Council for the Boot and Shoe Industry is to discuss the marking of footwear with my Department. I shall be glad to consider any proposals which may be made.

Country.
Treaty provision.
Date when terminable.


Austria 
…
Treaty of Commerce and Navigation. Art. 8.
On or after February 11th, 1935, subject to 12 months' previous notice.


Finland
…
Treaty of Commerce and Navigation. Art. 9.
At any time, subject to 6 months' notice. 


France
…
Convention of Commerce and Navigation. Art. 4.
At any time, subject to 3 months' notice.


Honduras
…
Treaty of Commerce and Navigation. Art. 10.
At any time, subject to 12 months' notice.


Germany
…
Treaty of Commerce and Navigation. Art. 14.
On or after September 8th, 1930, subject to 12 months' previous notice.


Japan
…
Treaty of Commerce and Navigation. Art. 11.
At any time, subject to 12 months' notice.


Latvia
…
Treaty of Commerce and Navigation. Art. 9.
At any time, subject to 12 months' notice.


Portugal
…
Treaty of Commerce and Navigation. Art. 9.
 On or after May 20th, 1926, subject to 12 months' previous notice.


S.H.S. State
…
Anglo-Serbian Treaty of Commerce. Art. 9.
Has been denounced and terminates on June 19th, 1926.


Spain
…
Treaty of Commerce and Navigation. Art. 10.
On or after April 23rd, 1927, subject to 6 months' previous notice.

Captain FAIRFAX: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider strengthening the provisions of the Income Tax Act, so as to provide more effectively against tax evasion by American film-production houses through

FOREIGN FILMS (TAXATION).

Sir FRANK MEYER: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade which Clauses of which commercial treaties preclude the imposition of a tax on the hiring fee of foreign films which would not apply to British films; and how long such treaties remain in force?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: With my hon. Friend's permission I will have a statement giving the desired information printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

His Majesty's Government would be debarred by the Treaty provisions noted below from imposing a higher internal tax on films produced or manufactured in the undermentioned countries than on films produced or manufactured in this country. The dates on which the Treaties in question can be terminated are given in the third column. In addition, a number of other countries are, in virtue of the Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses in their Treaties with this country, entitled to treatment not less favourable than that accorded in the matter in question to the countries specified below, so long as they received it:

their system of distributing companies in this country?

Mr. McNEILL: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the replies which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the question on the same subject asked
by him on the 23rd February and to the question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich on the 9th February. As he has already intimated, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is considering the whole subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

PENSIONS (WEEKLY PAYMENT).

Mr. BRIANT: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War if, for the convenience of Army pensioners, all pensions can be paid weekly instead of monthly?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): Pensions awarded to soldiers below the rank of warrant officer Class I since the beginning of the War are paid weekly in advance. Pre-War pensioners are entitled, under the Royal Warrant then in force, to be paid quarterly in advance, but, if they so desire, arrangements are made for them to draw their pensions weekly.

Mr. BRIANT: Would it not be desirable that the drawing of these pensions weekly should be made compulsory, on the same lines as police pensions, thus avoiding the trouble which is often caused by people spending the money in the first few weeks?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, Sir; I think that if a man likes to draw his pension quarterly in advance it may be of some advantage to him to do so, and I do not propose to compel him to take it weekly.

LULWORTH COVE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the situation with regard to the tank training grounds and ranges at Lulworth Cove, when does he propose to evacuate the district, and where is it proposed to establish these training grounds and firing ranges in the future?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The arrangements under which the War Department are in occupation of the land at Lulworth hold good until 31st August, 1929. The scheme for the provision of an alternative site is not sufficiently advanced to enable me to make any statement in answer to the second and third parts of the question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In case the right hon. Gentleman can make these arrangements for an alternative site, does he propose to evacuate this beauty spot before 1929?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a hypothetical question.

CADETS (REVISED RATES OF PAY).

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the desirability of exempting the 220 cadets who were at Woolwich, and the 549 cadets who were at Sandhurst, on the 17th October, 1925, the date of the promulgation of the revised rates of pay, from the incidence of these rates on the ground that these cadets were already committed to a military career, and in the case of cadets from the ranks the new order altered the material conditions under which they had signed a contract to serve for five years as officers?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As I stated in answer to a question on this subject on the 4th February, I cannot agree to any general departure from the rule that officers commissioned on or after 26th October, 1925, come under the new rates and conditions of pay. The question of a possible concession to Woolwich cadets who suffer in comparison with Sandhurst cadets of equal seniority is under consideration. My hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken in thinking that cadets from the ranks are required to sign a contract to serve for five years as officers.

Sir A. KNOX: Does not my right hon. Friend think that these cadets have been unfairly treated, as they were committed to a military career?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is a matter of opinion. It is always very hard when there is an alteration in conditions of service, and sometimes it may well be said that it is unfair, but I have tried to do what is fair in this particular case.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Woolwich cadets who went in at the same time are not prejudiced as compared with the Sandhurst cadets?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have already said that that is under consideration.

Captain GEE: Will a decision be arrived at before these cadets will be due to be gazetted, in September or October of this year?

Sir L. WORTH INGTON-EVANS: I cannot say.

ESTABLISHMENTS, CHANNEL ISLANDS (COST).

Mr. PENNY: 22.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what was the total amount expended by his Department in the last financial year in regard to military purposes and establishment generally in the Channel Islands; and the estimated expenditure for the coming year?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): The estimated full effective cost to Army Funds of military establishments in the Channel Islands is £290,000 in 1925–26, and £280,000 in 1926–27.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that this money is not wanted and not needed, and is absolutely throw away?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HAMILTON SHERIFF COURT.

Sir ALEXANDER SPROT: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider the advisability of appointing an additional sheriff-substitute at Hamilton, in view of the large increase in and the congested state of the work of that Court?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The position with regard to the business in Hamilton Sheriff Court is under consideration. I am unable at present to form an opinion as to the necessity for the course suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.

LAND IMPROVEMENT LOANS.

Sir A. SPROT: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that in the case of loans from a land improvement company Scottish applicants have to advertise the loan in a local paper, a stipulation which does not apply in the case of English applicants in precisely the same circumstances; and if he will introduce legislation to remove this inequality?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I shall keep the point in view when an opportunity occurs for amending legislation.

RECLAIMED RUBBER (ASSISTED HOUSING SCHEMES).

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is taking any steps to prevent imported insulated electric wire, in which reclaimed rubber has been used, being utilised in buildings in the erection of which his Department has jurisdiction, in view of the risk of fire arising owing to the reclaimed rubber disintegrating the insulation and setting up short circuit?

Sir J. GILMOUR: My attention has not been called to any instance in which material such as is referred to has been used. Having regard to the terms of Section 10 (1) of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, I am precluded from taking any steps to prevent the use of imported materials on assisted housing schemes, but all houses erected with State subsidy must comply with the requirement of the Scottish Board of Health that the materials used must be of good quality such as is ordinarily specified by a local authority in a contract for working-class houses. In the event of the Board being satisfied that materials not in compliance with their requirements had been used in subsidised houses, they would take steps to withhold payment of the State subsidy. Material such as is referred to in the question is not according to Board's general specification, and if brought to their notice would not be passed as complying with Board's requirements.

KENMURE WOOD.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the public right of way at Kenmure Wood, on the banks of the Clyde, at Carmyle, is being obstructed and destroyed by the operations of Kenmure colliery; and if he will make inquiries into the matter with a view to the preservation of the public interest in the right of way?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no information as to the matter referred to in the question, nor have I jurisdiction in questions of rights of way. Local authorities (in this case probably the District Com-
mittee) are charged by Statute with the protection of rights of way, and the hon. Member may think it desirable to bring this case to the notice of the District Committee.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, not a mile away from this spot, there has been a beauty spot on the Clyde covered up, and it was covered up during the War, when our minds were occupied with things abroad and not at home, and that this is an attempt to cover up another beauty spot—Kenmure Wood? I am giving you this as evidence that the district committee you refer to take no interest in it. I want to know if the right hon. Gentleman will use his influence with that district, in order that this vandalism may be stopped at once.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to cause inquiries to be made and see if some pressure cannot be brought to bear on the local authority to see that this does not happen? Surely it is the duty of some one to take care of rights of way?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I have explained, I have no jurisdiction in the matter. If the attention of the local authorities is called by those interested, I have no doubt action will be taken.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the fact that in England, when a local authority defaults in its duty, the Minister of Health takes the matter up? All we are asking is that the right hon. Gentleman should make some inquiries into this and see if he cannot find a way of bringing some pressure on the local authority if he finds it necessary to do so.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I should, of course, be quite willing to confer with the hon. Member who raised the question, but it must not be taken that I admit any liability.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman depute the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) to inquire into the matter for him?

JUVENILE COURTS.

Mr. WESTWOOD: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many juvenile Courts have been established in Scotland under Section 111 of the Children Act, 1908; and, if any have been established, will he state the names of the burghs?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I informed the hon. Member in my answer to his question on this subject on 4th February, I have no reason to suppose that the requirements of Section 111 of the Children Act are not given effect to in Scottish Courts. If, however, the hon. Member can supply me with any information to the contrary effect, I shall be glad to make inquiries.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Is it not a fact that it is for the Secretary of State for Scotland to give information to the House and not to ask the hon. Member for Midlothian to give him information in connection with the Scottish situation? Further, is it not a fact that in a reply I have received this week from his own Department they have not stated that there are any juvenile Courts set up?

Sir J. GILMOUR: My information would not lead me to believe the Courts are not carrying out what the law lays down. If the hon. Member has any reason to suppose they are not doing it, I shall be glad of any information.

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Mr. MACLEAN: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of ex-service men who have applied for small holdings in Scotland; and how many have been placed?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The numbers of applications received by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland from ex-service men, excluding those withdrawn subsequent to lodgment, are 5,704 for new holdings and 328 for enlargements of existing holdings. Of these applicants, 1,976 and 211, respectively, have been settled by the Board.

Mr. MACLEAN: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of small holdings that were being operated in Scotland prior to 1914; the number that have been granted each year since then;
and the number of applicants who are still waiting upon the granting of small holdings?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As the answer contains a table of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

In 1913 there were 51,614 holdings in Scotland not exceeding 50 acres in size. There were also a number of holdings exceeding 50 acres in size, the annual rent of which did not exceed £50, but I have no accurate information regarding these. The numbers of new holdings constituted each year since 1913 are as follows:


1914
…
…
…
318


1915
…
…
…
70


1916
…
…
…
52


1917
…
…
…
29


1918
…
…
…
11


1919
…
…
…
282


1920
…
…
…
227


1921
…
…
…
415


1922
…
…
…
433


1923
…
…
…
322


1924
…
…
…
269


1925
…
…
…
102


The outstanding applications at the present time number 6,838.

ERRIBOLL ESTATE.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what grounds the decision to sell the estate of Erriboll has been reached; what number of ex-service men and civilian applicants in the county of Sutherland are still without the holdings or enlargements for which they have applied; and how the proceeds of the proposed sale will be utilised?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As stated in the Report of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland for the year ending the 31st December, 1924, no applicants were found ready, in spite of the widest publicity and advertisement, to take holdings under the Board's scheme for Erriboll Estate, owing to lack of sufficient capital to enable them to make the initial cash payment of 25 per cent. of the price of the sheep stock on the ground. The outstanding applications from Sutherlandshire for new
holdings and enlargements number 185 and 11 respectively from ex-service men and 119 and 770 respectively from other applicants. The method of utilising the proceeds of the sale has not yet been determined.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is it not a fact that these men were required to advance capital of no less than £400 or £500 each before they were allowed to take part in the scheme, and seeing that the farm is now considered unfitted for the purpose of land settlement, and that 1,000 applicants are still unsatisfied, will not the right hon. Gentleman at least give an assurance that the proceeds of the sale will be devoted to settling these unsatisfied applicants?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is clear that this property is unsuited, as I think the hon. Gentleman admits, and that is the reason why I have given directions for the sale. As to which particular scheme we may use the money for—which will be used for land settlement—I cannot commit myself.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Seeing that it was bought for the benefit of the applicants in Sutherland, will not the proceeds of the sale of the unsatisfactory scheme be used for these people?

Sir J. GILMOUR: All I can say is that, of course, every consideration will be given to the settlement.

HOUSING.

Mr. MACLEAN: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses that have been built in connection with schemes of State assistance under the Housing Acts in Scotland and the number still remaining to be built; the number of houses built without Exchequer subsidy; and what the total cost has been to the Exchequer up to January, 1926?

Sir J. GILMOUR: In reply to the first two and last parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to his previous question of 23rd ultimo on the same subject. With regard to the third part of the question, returns received from local authorities show that the total number of houses built in Scotland without Exchequer subsidy during
the years 1919 to 1925 inclusive was approximately 8,700.

Mr. STEPHEN: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses have been erected in the Camlachie Division of Glasgow under the Housing Acts; how many are available for letting; and what is the number of houses approved but not yet erected?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No houses have yet been erected under the Housing Acts in the Camlachie Division of Glasgow. A proposal for the erection of 192 houses at Duke Street under the Corporation's scheme for the improvement of insanitary areas, has however, been approved by the Scottish Board of Health. Tenders for the erection of these houses have now been received and are under consideration.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the infantile mortality figures for that division are the highest in Glasgow and will he give his attention to the matter, with a view to securing better housing accommodation for the people?

Sir J. GILMOUR: There is evidence of the Government's desire to improve the housing conditions in Scotland.

HERRING FISHING INDUSTRY.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of barrels of cured herring exported from Scotland to Germany and Russia in 1911, 1912 and 1913, respectively, and the number exported to Germany, Russia and the Baltic States in 1923, 1924 and 1925, respectively, together with the average prices received; and the amount of unsold stock on hand at the latest available date?

Sir J. GILMOUR: With the hon. Member's permission, I propose to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The number of barrels of cured herrings exported from Scotland to Germany in 1911, 1912 and 1913 was 768,375, 687,790 and 647,087 respectively; the corresponding figures for Russia were 655,814, 750,187 and 619,680 barrels. The number of barrels exported to Germany, Russia
and the Baltic States in 1923, 1924 and 1925 was as follow:


—
1923.
1924.
1925.


Germany
494,301
724,137
460,845


Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
—
130,432
56,350


Baltic States
232,548
228,666
121,348


The exports to Germany for 1923–25 include exports to Danzig, to make the figures comparable with the figures for 1911–13. The exports to Danzig for the years 1923–25 were, respectively, 231,686, 223,893 and 82,710 barrels. The average prices received are not known, but the average value per barrel before export was returned as, approximately, 30s. 3d., 32s. 9d. and 39s. 3d. in the years 1911–13, and 27s. 8d., 43s. 7d. and 49s. 2d. in the years 1923–25. The number of barrels on hand in Scotland at the 31st January last (the latest date for which figures are available) was 5,286; it is not known, however, whether these were all unsold.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the depression prevailing in the Scottish fishing industry due to the closing of the trade in cured herrings with Russia; that before the War Russia imported through her own ports or over her frontier 75 per cent. of the total catch of the Scottish herring fishermen; that, in the considered opinion of the industry, the key to prosperity lies in reopening the Russian market; and whether, in view of these facts, he is now prepared to extend the benefits of the export credits scheme for this particular trade with Russia?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have been asked to reply. With regard to the first, third and fourth parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Merthyr on 16th February, a copy of which I am sending him. With regard to the second part. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL BEPORT a statement taken from the Reports of the Fishery Board for Scotland, from which it will be seen that in 1913 the proportion of the total quantity of herrings caught and cured in Scotland, which was exported to ports in the countries comprising pre-
War Russia, amounted to 32.8 per cent., the corresponding percentage in 1924 being 34 per cent. The corresponding proportions exported to ports in Germany were 35.7 per cent. in 1913, and 31.8 per cent. in 1924.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any request to receive a deputation for representatives of all parties on the herring fishing industry, and, if so, is he prepared to receive it?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. I do not think I have had such a request. Probably on a subject connected with Scotland it would be convenient that it should be addressed to the Secretary of

Quantity of Herrings.
1913.
1924.


Barrels.
Proportion of Total Cured.
Barrels.
Proportion of Total Cured.


Cured

1,886,596
—
1,722,759
—


Exports to—


Per cent.

Per cent.



Russia
…
619,680 (c)
32.8
130,432
7.6
34


Finland 
…
(a)
—
32,040
1.9


Esthonia
…
(a)
—
49,296
2.9


Latvia 
…
(a)
—
147,329
8.6


Lithuania 
…
(a)
—
—
—


Poland (including Dantzig) 
…
(b)
—
223,893
13.0


Germany 
…
672,701 (c)
35.7
548,175
31.8


(a) Included with Russia.


(6) Included partly with Russia and partly with Germany.


(c) Pre-War territories.

FOREIGN TRAWLERS (MORAY FIRTH).

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the damage recently done by foreign trawlers to fishermen's gear in the Moray Firth; whether the closure of the Moray Firth has yet been discussed by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea; and, if so, what conclusions were reached and what action His Majesty's Government proposes to take?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Fishery Board for Scotland have not received any recent complaints of damage alleged to have been done by foreign trawlers to fishing gear in the Moray Firth. The question of the closure of the Moray Firth to trawling has been considered by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and has been remitted to a committee for investigation.

State for Scotland, to whom this question was addressed. I have answered it because I have the statistical information.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is there any difficulty other than the fact that Russia will not pay?

Following is the statement:

The following statement shows the quantity of herrings cured (gutted and ungutted) in Scotland during the years specified, together with the quantities exported from Scottish ports to ports in Russia, Germany, etc., in the same years, according to the Annual Reports of the Fishery Board for Scotland for the respective years:

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire about the damage done by trawlers, because I know there is some information on the way to his Department.

Sir J. GILMOUR: We made inquiries, but nothing up to date has been received.

LAND DRAINAGE.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money was expended on drainage in Scotland during the year 1924–25 out of moneys voted by Parliament for the relief of unemployment; how much is being provided from the same source for the year 1925–26; how much in addition is being provided during the current financial year for agricultural drainage under the Government's new scheme; and whether any money is being provided for drainage
of agricultural or pastoral land during the current year from any other source?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The amount spent in the financial year 1924–25 was £32,518. Provision has been made for the current financial year 1925–26, to the extent of £43,000. No additional money will be provided during the year 1925–26 for the purposes of the new agricultural drainage scheme, but the Treasury are providing in the 1926–27 Estimates of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland for an expenditure of £20,625 under the new scheme. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Will money be available under the old scheme, as under the new scheme, in the forthcoming year?

Sir J. GILMOUR: There will be a certain amount of drainage scheme proceeding in this year.

EX-SERVICE MEN, PAROCHIAL RELIEF, GOVAN.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of ex-service men in receipt of parish relief in the Govan Parish Council area?

Sir J. GILMOUR: During the week ended 27th February, 1926, relief was paid by Govan Parish Council to 5,643 able-bodied unemployed men of whom 2,311 were ex-service. Information as to service is not available in the case of applicants for ordinary Poor relief.

GLASGOW PARISH COUNCIL (RELIEF).

Mr. STEPHEN: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the amount of relief expended by the Glasgow Parish Council for the months of January, 1925 and 1926, respectively?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The amount paid by Glasgow Parish Council in aliments to destitute able-bodied unemployed persons during the four weeks ended 30th January, 1926, was £27,711. During the four weeks ended 31st January, 1925, the corresponding expenditure was £12,996.
The expenditure on aliments to persons on the outdoor roll in respect of ordinary Poor relief during the month of January is not available. The expenditure on aliments to this class during the four weeks ended 15th February, 1926, was
£21,859, and in the corresponding period of 1925, £22,925.
The above figures do not include the cost of relief to mental cases or the cost of relief in institutions regarding which the desired information is not available.

POOR LAW, VACCINATION AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTS.

Mr. STEPHEN: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the rules, instructions, and recommendations to parochial authorities previously issued by the Local Government Board for Scotland, in connection with the Poor Law, Vaccination, and Local Government (Scotland) Acts, are still available for the use of members of parish councils in Scotland; and, if not, if he can arrange for their reissue?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The volume is now out of print and is to some extent out of date. A copy of the volume was supplied to every parish at the time of publication and copies of circulars and instructions issued since then have also been supplied to every parish. The issue of a new edition of the volume is not contemplated at present in view of the expense that would be involved.

Mr. STEPHEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how members of the parochial authorities are able to carry out their duties if this volume, the only volume which can give them information, is out of print? Will he reconsider the decision not to reissue it, in view of the importance to these people of having full information as to their powers?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I understand it, ample information is at the disposal of these authorities, but it is a matter I am prepared to look into. I am not satisfied that it is desirable to reissue it at the present time.

Commander WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman giving the parish councils all possible information as to the value of vaccination?

Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman issuing any warning as to the dangers of vaccination?

STEAMSHIP SUBSIDIES.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the amount of the subsidies paid for the current year to Messrs. McCallum, Messrs. Martin Orme and Company, and Messrs.
MacBrayne; how much has been paid during the last five years to each of them; and whether any supervision or control is exercised over these firms as to the charges for passengers and freight or as to ports of call or frequency or infrequency of steamers, or whether they are entirely unrestricted except in so far as the Postmaster-General considers requisite for postal facilities?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am informed that the payments for the current year are £500 jointly to Messrs. McCallum and Messrs. Martin Orme and Company, and £36,000 to Messrs. MacBrayne. During the last five years the two companies first mentioned and Messrs. MacBrayne have been paid £2,500 and £232,000, respectively. The agreements with the Postmaster-General bind the companies to make calls at specified ports at fixed times and intervals and Messrs. MacBrayne are required generally to maintain efficiently such passenger and cargo services as were in operation in 1923. The firms in question are not required by the terms of their agreements with the Government to submit for approval their rates of freights and fares.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that one result of giving a grant to private firms, without any restraint over their charges, is to combine all the vices of Government monopoly with all the vices of private enterprise, without any of the restraints which prevail in the adoption of either? It is a blend of both and it makes a bad blend.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is a very serious matter.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I should like an answer to my supplementary question.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (HIGHLANDS RURAL PROBLEMS).

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that the existence of a Board of Agriculture, a Forestry Commission, a section of the Office of Woods and Forests, a Public Health Department charged with rural housing, a Land Court, a Road Transport Department, and a section of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, all operating and
dealing with the same area on rural problems, all independent, and all with separate staffs and offices, is a serious menace to the carrying on of administration of public duties in the Highlands of Scotland, he has considered the advisability of unifying all these bodies under one authority with a view to efficiency in the problems arising in that area and consequent saving in cost of administration and hotel and travelling expenses?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend would apparently involve the creation of an additional department dealing with a large number of diverse subjects. I am fully alive to the importance of securing the greatest possible measure of efficiency and economy in administration, but my hon. and learned Friend will realise that the suggestion made in the question raises issues much too wide to be dealt with by way of question and answer.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that the officials of seven Departments going over these sparsely populated districts is an enormous expense upon them and upon the Government, and that it would be very much better expended in giving them reasonable transport so that they can dispense with all these officials?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: What does the Secretary of State for Scotland mean in giving these replies? He says that it is going to have his careful consideration. What does he mean by "careful consideration"?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

PRODUCTION AND PRICES.

Mr. TINKER: 42.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of tons of coal produced in Great Britain for the months of August, September, October, November, December, 1924, and January, 1925, respectively; the number of tons exported during that period; the average price per ton for the exported coal; and the figures for August, September, October, November, December, 1925, and January, 1926, respectively?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): As the reply involves a table of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The information is as follows:


Month.
Output of Saleable Coal.
Coal Exported
Month.
Output of Saleable Coal.
Coal Exported


Quantity
Average Declared Value per ton f.o.b.
Quantity.
Average Declared Value per ton f.o.b.


1924.

Tons.
Tons
s.
d.
1925.
Tons.
Tons.
s.
d.


August
…
20,106,300
5,074,744
22
7
August
16,461,100
3,272,110
19
4


September
…
21,960,400
5,098,406
22
6
September
18,709,300
3,902,006
18
 9


October
…
22,954,600
4,932,852
22
3
October
20,894,900
4,337,768
18
4


November
…
21,098,000
4,758,800
21
9
November
20,363,200
4,337,768
18
5


December
…
22,000,400
5,167,525
21
7
December
22,526,000
4,632,051
18
6


1925




1926





January
…
22,534,200
4,366,051
21
7
January
21,591,800
4,148,042
18
5

BOYS.

Mr. HAYDAY: 44.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of boys of 16 years of age or under employed in or about coal mines in Great Britain at the latest date for which figures are available?

Colonel LANE FOX: In 1924, the latest year for which information is available, the number was 64,799

The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. HAYDAY:

To ask the Secretary for Mines whether he will state the number of fatal and nonfatal accidents, respectively, to boys of 16 years of age or under employed in or about coal mines in Great Britain for the year ending 31st December, 1925?

Mr. HAYDAY: I have been asked to postpone this question. In doing so, I should like to know when it is possible for me to get the information.

Colonel LANE FOX: I ask the hon. Member to postpone this question because we have not yet got the complete figures. As he knows, my Department has been working very hard lately, and we never get complete figures until some time after the end of the year. If the hon. Member puts the question down towards the end of the month, I will endeavour to give him a reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINING ROYALTIES.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. WRIGHT: 43.
asked the Secretary for Mines the amount paid from
mining royalties to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the years 1920 to 1925, inclusive?

Major BIRCHALL (representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners): The Secretary for Mines has asked me to reply to this question. The amounts received by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from mining royalties (including royalties on surface minerals and rents of surface for mining purposes) were as follow:







£


1920
…
…
…
…
452,000


1921
…
…
…
…
298,000


1922
…
…
…
…
426,000


1923
…
…
…
…
459,000


1924
…
…
…
…
465,000


The figures for the year 1925 are not yet available, but the estimated amount is £415,000.

Mr. WRIGHT: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member to use his influence with the Government in order to restrain outbursts of distinguished ecclesiastics against the miners and in favour of the mineowners?

CHANNEL ISLANDS (IMPERIAL CONTRIBUTION).

Mr. PENNY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make any statement as to when the recommendations of the Committee in regard to Imperial contribution for taxation purposes from the Channel Islands will be discussed?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The Report has not yet been con-
sidered by the Government, and I am therefore not in a position to make any statement at the present time.

MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.

Major Sir GRANVILLE WHELER: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state when the Merchandise Marks Bill will be introduced?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have been asked to reply. The Bill is to be introduced to-day.

IMPERIAL DEFENCE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is considering, or will consider, the formation of a Ministry of Defence for the purpose of the better allocation of the available money for the defence of the Empire?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to my statement in reply to the Leader of the Opposition on Thursday last, which sets forth the intentions of the Government in regard to our defence organisation. As I have already intimated, if there is a general desire for discussion of this question, arrangements can be made through the usual channels. I should, however, prefer to await the expressions of opinion during the Debates on the Service Estimates.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to the Service Estimates being taken separately, it is very difficult to debate this question, and will he take that point into consideration?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, but there is no lack of ingenuity amongst hon. Members, and I think the best occasion on which we could debate this matter—and I should prefer it—would be on my own Estimates. Then we could discuss the question of the Committee of Imperial Defence.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question does not in any way concern the independence of the Air Force?

FOREIGN BARLEY (IMPORT DUTY).

Mr. BOOTHBY: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that foreign barley has recently been imported into the North of Scotland for the purpose of distilling whiskey, subsequently sold as Scotch, in such quantities as to render barley grown locally practically unsaleable; and whether, in view of the difficulties with which Scottish farmers are contending, he will consider the advisability of imposing a Customs duty on barley imported in to this country for distilling purposes only?

Mr. McNEILL: Some barley has recently been imported into the North of Scotland, but I have no information as to its disposal. As regards the last part of the question, I am unable to anticipate the Budget statement.

Mr. BOOTHBY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this imported foreign barley, which is being bought by distillers, is quoted at Lossiemouth at 53s. a quarter, while the price of malted barley grown locally has sunk as low as 32s. per quarter, and will he not, therefore, put a Customs duty on this imported barley to prohibit this importation altogether, as he ought to do, or use his influence with distillers to induce them to buy British barley?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now giving information rather than asking for it.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. MARDY JONES: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of allowances off the Income Tax allowed on income derived from the rent or royalty charges on the total output of coal chargeable to royalties for expenses of management or supervision of the said minerals for each of the fiscal years 1922–23, 1923–24, and 1924–25?

Mr. McNEILL: I regret that the information asked for is not available. It is, however, estimated that at the current rate of Income Tax, the Income Tax repayable in respect of expenses of management of mineral royalties is about £25,000 per annum.

Sir EDWARD ILIFFE: 52
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in
future, the costs of appeals made by the Inland Revenue from decisions of the High Court will be paid by the Crown in any event, so that no portion of the costs of interpreting the Income Tax Acts by the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords shall fall upon the taxpayer after he has succeeded in the Court of first instance?

Mr. McNEILL: The matter to which my hon. Friend refers is receiving the careful consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will shortly be receiving a deputation on the subject.

GOLD RESERVES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are our present gold reserves; and what export of gold has taken place since the restrictions have been removed?

Mr. McNEILL: The gold coin and bullion in the Issue Department of the Bank of England at the close of business on the 24th February, 1926, was £143,186,170. The net reduction since the 29th April last has been £10,720,145.

LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND AND DOMINIONS).

Mr. LAMB: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the extent to which, and the terms on which, British Government credit has been pledged to the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland for the purposes of land purchase, lands improvement and agricultural short-term credits, respectively?

Mr. McNEILL: Under the Irish Free State Land Purchase (Loan Guarantee) Act, 1924, the Treasury have guaranteed the principal of, and interest at a rate not exceeding 4½ per cent., per annum on, the Land Bonds to be issued by the Government of the Irish Free State within a period of eight years from the passing of that Act for the purpose of land purchase under the Free State Land Act of 1923 up to a limit of £30,000,000. Under the Northern Ireland Land Act, 1925, the Treasury are responsible for the issue of 4½ per cent. bonds, estimated to amount to nearly £9,000,000, for the purposes of that Act,
guaranteed by the Consolidated Fund. Any cost falling on the Exchequer is recoverable from the Northern Irish share of reserved taxes under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. There is no pledge of British credit to the Irish Free State or Northern Ireland for agricultural short-term credits.

Mr. LAMB: Has the limit of £30,000,000 been reached?

Mr. McNEILL: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. LAMB: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the extent to which, and the terms on which, British Government credit has been pledged in the Overseas Dominions (other than the Irish Free State), Crown Colonies, and Dependencies, for the purposes of land purchase, lands improvement, and agricultural short-term credits, respectively?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): Apart, possibly, from certain liabilities under the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, there is nothing, so far as I am aware, in relation to the self-governing Dominions which falls within the scope of my hon. Friend's question. Grants or loans-in-aid have been made by His Majesty's Government to Colonies on the occasion of a natural disaster, such as the Mauritius hurricane of 1892, or for other causes, part of which was in some cases no doubt expended in improvements as well as in repairing damage. In 1898 a grant of £15,000 was made to St. Vincent for peasant settlement. Apart from such grants or loans, I am not aware of any Imperial guarantee of loans for the purposes described.

INCOME TAX FORMS (ADVERTISEMENTS).

Mr. D. HERBERT: 56.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what control is exercised over the class of advertisements on the back of printed letters used by inspectors of taxes for purposes of communication with Income Tax payers; and what steps are taken to see that such advertisements are of a suitable character?

Mr. McNEILL: The acceptance of advertisements for display in the vacant space on printed letter-forms used by His
Majesty's Inspectors of Taxes is in every case subject to the approval of the Controller of His Majesty's Stationery Office, who consults the Board of Inland Revenue before giving that approval.

Mr. HERBERT: Does the right hon. Gentleman think the Board of Inland Revenue would consider it suitable that letters from Inspectors of Taxes to Income Tax payers should contain on the back advertisements as to methods of saving Income Tax such as the one I have in my hand?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot discuss with the hon. Member the suitability of these advertisements.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not a curious policy for the Government to advertise drink, when they have to pass laws prohibiting its sale?

Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir, there is nothing curious in it at all.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is consonant with the dignity of the State to advertise on State documents at all?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

JUNIOR EXECUTIVE GRADE (WOMEN).

Mr. BRIANT: 57.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the virtual exclusion of women from the Junior Executive Grade, before pressing Departments to fill junior executive vacancies by redundant ex-second division male clerks, steps will be taken in each case to examine the position with a view to ascertaining whether a proportion of the vacancies could be reserved for ex-first class women clerks where they are senior to their male colleagues, seeing that these women entered the service by an examination similar to that of the second division men and were then promoted to a higher grade?

Mr. McNEILL: I am afraid that I can see no justification for departing from the present arrangement under which vacancies in the Junior Executive Grade are filled wherever possible by the transfer of officers who are paid on the scale of pay of that grade but for whom posts in that grade have not yet been found.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD TRACTORS (DISCHARGE OF STEAM).

Mr. W. BAKER: 61.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any regulation forbids the discharge of steam by road tractors; and whether he will consider the possibility of insisting that condensers should be fitted?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): Tractors which are light locomotives must, under Section 1 of the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, be so constructed that no smoke or visible vapour is emitted except from a temporary or accidental cause. As regards tractors which are locomotives, as distinct from light locomotives, there is no provision forbidding the discharge of steam, although under Section 30 of the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878, such vehicles must be constructed to consume, so far as practicable, their smoke. The point raised in the latter part of the question has been considered, but I am doubtful whether it would be practicable to require all steam driven vehicles to be fitted with a condensing apparatus.

Sir J. NALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of using these implements here with a view to expediting business?

OMNIBUSES (FIRE OUTBREAKS).

Mr. CAMPBELL: 62.
asked the Minister of Transport the number of omnibuses which have been destroyed by fire in each of the last five years, the cause of the outbreak of fire, and the resultant casualties?

Colonel ASHLEY: I regret that the available information regarding street accidents is not such as would enable me to extract the particulars asked for by my hon. Friend.

SOUTHERN RAILWAY.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 63.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make representations to the Southern Railway Company for the improvement of the train services between Victoria and the Crystal Palace, Sydenham, Forest Hill and Honor Oak Park?

Colonel ASHLEY: As my hon. Friend is aware, I have no direct control over railway train services, but I will bring to
the notice of the railway company any specific suggestions he may have to make with regard to the services between the stations mentioned. I may add that I understand that the Southern Railway Company are considering the introduction of electrical traction on the remainder of their suburban lines, including those to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. DALTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the necessity for an additional tube railway in South-East London?

Colonel ASHLEY: The whole question is under review.

Mr. W. BAKER: Is it not a fact that the electric train service between Victoria and the Crystal Palace has been greatly worsened since the new electrification scheme has been introduced between Victoria and Thornton Health?

Mr. WILLIAMS: 64
also asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the condition, which has steadily been becoming worse, of many of the stations on the line between Norwood Junction and London Bridge; and whether he will take steps to get the Southern Railway Company to remedy this state of affairs?

Colonel ASHLEY: The responsibility for the proper upkeep of railway stations rests with the railway companies, and I have no control over them in this respect. I will, however, bring my hon. Friend's complaint to the notice of the railway company concerned if he will give me some further particulars of the defects which, in his opinion, require to be remedied.

Mr. W. THORNE: Will the Government consider the desirability of taking over this railway and working it themselves?

NORTH LONDON TRAVELLING FACILITIES.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 65.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received the Report of the recent public Inquiry into the travelling facilities in North London; and whether the Report will be published?

Colonel ASHLEY: The London Traffic Advisory Committee are now considering the Report of the members who were
appointed by them to hold the inquiry. No Report has yet been presented to me by the Committee.

Mr. MORRISON: Can we take it that the right hon. Gentleman will publish the report as soon as he receives it, in view of the anxiety of the local authorities in North London who took part in this inquiry; and in view of the fact that all the evidence has been taken will he publish the report?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am waiting to see what the report contains.

LIFTING JACKS.

Mr. W. BAKER: 66.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to a collision between a steam lorry and a motor cycle in Bristol, as a result of which the cyclist was pinned underneath the motor lorry for nearly half-an-hour; and whether he will consider the desirability of making it compulsory for all such vehicles to carry lifting jacks?

Colonel ASHLEY: Although I had not previously been informed of this particular accident, my attention has been drawn to similar occurrences. I have no power to make any Regulation such as that suggested in the last part of the question, and in any case I am afraid that adequate lifting tackle is so heavy and bulky that it would not be practicable to require that all lorries, etc., should be so equipped.

ROAD RECONSTRUCTION.

Mr. HURD: 67.
asked the Minister of Transport what is the estimated cost of reconstruction of classified and unclassified roads, respectively, to make them fit for modern traffic?

Colonel ASHLEY: Both classified and unclassified roads vary so considerably in width, strength and condition that it is impossible to quote a generally applicable figure for their reconstruction, the cost of which is also greatly influenced by the availability of local road materials.

Mr. HURD: How can my right hon. Friend advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the proposal to raid the Road Fund unless he is also able to tell him how much money it is necessary to put from the Road Fund to the repair of these roads?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am not at all sure that I agree with the assumption of my hon. Friend.

Mr. REMER: Would it not be more advisable. if the right hon. Gentleman stopped the arterial roads and did a little more in repairing the existing roads?

SCOTSWOOD BRIDGE, NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE.

Mr. WHITELEY: 68.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the increase in traffic during recent months over Scotswood Bridge, Newcastle-upon-Tyne; whether he is aware that the bridge is unfit and inadequate to deal with such traffic and, in consequence, is becoming a source of danger to the public; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with the matter?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have no knowledge of the actual condition of the bridge. I understand that negotiations have taken place between the local authorities primarily concerned, though I have not been informed of their progress.

Mr. PALIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause inquiries to be made by his technical advisers having regard to the importance of public safety, and the fact that this bridge is totally inadequate for the traffic that it has to carry?

Colonel ASHLEY: I will consider that suggestion.

GYRATORY TRAFFIC (SAFETY OF PEDESTRIANS).

Colonel DAY: 69.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will recommend the Traffic Advisory Committee to consider, as an experiment, the painting of a broad white line or band to denote the crossing for pedestrians where the gyratory traffic control is in operation?

Colonel ASHLEY: The technical officers of my Department are considering, in conjunction with representatives of the Metropolitan Police, whether any further measures can usefully be taken to safeguard pedestrians where the gyratory traffic system is in operation, and I am referring to them the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member.

Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: Would not the simplest plan be for pedestrians to be instructed to cross only at the refuges?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the approaches to this House from Victoria Street?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: What is the use of the lines if traffic continues to gyrate?

LEDBURY AND GLOUCESTER OMNIBUSES.

Mr. PURCELL: 70.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that on the omnibus service 53 between Ledbury and Gloucester there is constant over-crowding on the vehicles, especially at the week-ends, on many occasions the occupants of a vehicle being twice the number the vehicle is licensed to carry; and whether, in view of recent accidents, he will make inquiries into this matter with a view to the elimination of the risk now being run?

Colonel ASHLEY: My attention had not previously been drawn to this matter. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, it is at times most difficult to prevent a certain amount of overcrowding in omnibuses, but in view of the widely varying nature of local circumstances I think the matter is one that is best left to the appropriate licensing and police authorities.

RAILWAY WAGONS.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: 71.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received any representations with regard to the dislocation of business and financial loss now being caused to home producers throughout the British Isles owing to the increased delay by the railway companies in clearing and returning wagons, particularly since the amalgamations have taken effect; and whether, in view of the fact that foreign consignors are able to deliver their products at certain points in the country in shorter time than the home producers, he will have the whole question investigated, and take such steps as are necessary to effect the adoption by the railway companies of some new system, and, in the meantime, an improvement in existing conditions?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have received certain representations with regard to delay in clearing and returning wagons required for the conveyance of coal and other traffic, and some of these representations have been investigated at my request by the companies concerned. The companies explain that during the periods of exceptionally inclement
weather experienced during last winter their operations were hampered and delays and shortage of wagons in some cases resulted. Such shortage cannot, however, in the companies' view, be attributed to amalgamation. As regards the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, I have no evidence that preference is given to foreign as against home produce, and if any specific instances are brought to my notice in which it is alleged that this is the case, I will certainly give them consideration.

Mr. W. THORNE: In consequence of the answers given from time to time to various questions, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's Department has any plenary powers at all for anything?

Sir C. RAWSON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Midland Railway Company recently succeeded in conveying a truck of coal from Whitwick to Leicester, a distance of five miles, in 14 days?

Mr. DEAN: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous waste of food grown in South Lincolnshire owing to the irregularity of transport to the market?

Colonel ASHLEY: If my hon. Friend would give me specific instances, I will bring them to the notice of the railway company.

THAMES BRIDGES.

Sir W. DAVISON: 73.
asked the Minister of Transport if he has come to any conclusion as to whether the erection of a bridge across the Thames in the neighbourhood of Charing Cross or the erection of a bridge in the neighbourhood of St. Paul's Cathedral is of the greater urgency to meet present-day traffic requirements?

Colonel ASHLEY: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 23rd February to the hon. Member for Mile End, of which I am sending him a copy.

TOLL-GATES.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 75.
asked the Minister of Transport how many toll-gates, at which charges are made, are still in operation in Great Britain; and what efforts
are being made to do away with these hindrances to traffic?

Colonel ASHLEY: There are 64 toll-roads and 127 toll-bridges in Great Britain. The question of freeing the more important of these roads and bridges is engaging the attention of local authorities in increasing numbers. The initiative must rest with the local authorities concerned, by whom application may be made for assistance from the Road Fund. Any such applications will be considered with due regard to the importance of the road or bridge and the amount of the moneys which may be available for this purpose.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that the county which is honoured by the residence of the right hon. Gentleman himself is a very bad offender in this regard?

Mr. PALING: As these tolls are being taken away at a very slow rate indeed, cannot the Minister do something to compel the local authorities to speed up their action?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am a believer in local government. This is a matter for the local authorities. If they consider a scheme and submit it to me I shall be very glad to give them what help I can, but the responsibility must rest primarily with the local authorities.

Mr. PENNY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of using the surplus of the Road Fund in relief of those areas where local authorities are backward?

Sir G. WHELER: If the local authorities and county council put up a scheme may we take it that they are almost certain to get a grant to help them?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, my right hon. Friend must not take that as the fact. Their case will receive the most favour able consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

AUXILIARY SORTERS.

Mr. HARRIS: 76.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will review the economic conditions of auxiliary sorters employed in the London Postal Service; whether he will state the average work,
the hours, and the wages earned by them; and whether he will consider so arranging their conditions that they can get a subsistence wage?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The hours of attendance of auxiliary sorters mostly range from nine to 24 hours a week, spread over the period from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m., and the rates of pay are from 1s. 3½d. to 1s. 4d. an hour. The point referred to in the last part of the hon. Member's question is one of several on which representations were made by a deputation from the Auxiliary Sorters' Association which was received on the 10th February. These representations are receiving consideration.

BOURNEMOUTH (MAIL VANS).

Mr. GRIFFITHS: 77.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in connection with the decision to end the contract in Bournemouth for mail vans and to do the work direct, he is aware that the four mail-van drivers, who have received notice of discharge, have, respectively, 25, 25, 18, and 9 years' service to their credit; and whether, in view of this long service, he will give further consideration to the possibility of retaining these men in the service?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The drivers to whom the hon. Member refers are and always have been employés of contractors. Their service with the present contractors is about two years. While I have every sympathy with their position, I am precluded from admitting that they have a claim to established employment in the Post Office, for the work will, in future, be proper to the class of postman and it is the rule that for vacancies on this class, candidates must be ex-service men who comply with certain conditions. Only one of the drivers in question is an ex-service man and though, strictly speaking, his term of Army service was not long enough to render him eligible for appointment as postman, I will consider whether the conditions can be relaxed in his favour, provided that he proves to be otherwise suitable for establishment.

AUTOMATIC TELEPHONES (LONDON).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 79.
asked the Postmaster-General if he can inform the
House when the automatic telephone is to be introduced into the London telephone area?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It is hoped to open three or four automatic exchanges in London during 1927 and others at short intervals throughout the next few years. The conversion of the London area to automatic working must necessarily be a gradual and lengthy operation.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say which will be the three or four districts to be opened first?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Without any definite commitment as to date, the first two will be, I think, Holborn and Bishopsgate somewhere about May, 1927, and Sloane and Western next somewhere about the end of 1927.

Captain GEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of alloting the numbers for sale by tender?

KENYA (CONVENTION OF ASSOCIATIONS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 81.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the censure passed on Mr. Maxwell, Chief Native Commissioner of Kenya, by the Convention of Associations at Nairobi, especially for drawing attention to the anxiety of the Kikuyu about the security of their lands; and whether he intends to pay attention to the censure of the convention or to take steps to support the Chief Commissioner and remove the anxiety of the natives by securing them in the rights to their lands?

Mr. AMERY: I have, of course, only seen the cabled report of the proceedings of the Convention of Associations, which is a purely unofficial body. I shall await any comments which the Governor may make on the subject. I have already communicated with him as to the steps to be taken for securing the natives in the possession of their lands, and I am now awaiting his detailed recommendations.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does this Convention of Associations communicate with
the Governor; and are the Government officially represented on this extraordinary convention?

Mr. AMERY: Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down that question. So far as I know, the Government are not represented.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May we be assured that the right hon. Gentleman is going to support this distinguished civil servant and give him every encouragement and help?

Mr. AMERY: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman can rely on that.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right ton. Gentleman aware that the principal censure on Mr. Maxwell was because he was not present to listen to the censure passed upon him?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

FRONTIER FORCE.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 82.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Jews are excluded from the reformed Eastern Palestinian gendarmerie; if so, why; and what other police force it is intended to maintain in Palestine?

Mr. AMERY: I am still in correspondence with the High Commissioner on the subject of the proposed new Frontier Force, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject. This force is to be of a military character and quite separate from the ordinary police forces for the maintenance of internal order and security in Palestine.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we take it that Jews are not going to be excluded from the new force?

Mr. AMERY: Not so far as I know. The matter is still under consideration. The new force will be largely concerned with Transjordania.

RURAL TAXATION.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 83.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what measures Lord Plumer is proposing with regard to the abolition of tithe and substitution of some form of Land Tax in
Palestine; and is it the intention of this change to make land available for new settlers on easier terms?

Mr. AMERY: The question of rural taxation in Palestine is under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman let me know as soon as he has any information on the subject?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, certainly.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT (CANADA).

Mr. HURD: 84.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how many families were accepted and placed in Canada last year under the 3,000 family scheme for that year; and what is the present position of the scheme?

Mr. AMERY: The number of families who were placed under the 3,000 families scheme during 1925 was 480. 926 families have been accepted for settlement during 1926, of whom 11 have already sailed. The reports on the working of the scheme, and the letters which have been received from the settlers, are very encouraging.

Mr. SKELTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the bulk of these families are drawn from urban or rural areas?

Mr. AMERY: These are rural families.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

ONE-ROOM TENEMENTS (DEVONPORT).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 89.
asked the Minister of Health the number of one-room tenements there are, respectively, in the St. Aubyn and Nelson Wards, Devonport?

Sir K. WOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given to his previous question on this subject on the 5th February last.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I got no reply at all, and is it not the duty of his Department to get these statistics, which must be in the possession of the Registrar-General or Medical Office of Health?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. As the hon. Gentleman was informed on the previous occasion, these particulars are not available in the Ministry.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the hon. Gentleman get them for me, as they are most important?

BUILDING INDUSTRY (APPRENTICES).

Mr. BRIANT: 90.
asked the Minister of Health what is the result of the negotiations between the trade unions concerned with the building industry as to the number of apprentices to be admitted; and what are the actual regulations agreed on behalf of the trade unions?

Sir K. WOOD: The building trade unions have agreed that the restriction in regard to the number of apprentices employed by any one builder may be removed, and that in the case of contracts for working-class cottages let by local authorities, the number of apprentices may be in the ratio of one apprentice for every three craftsmen employed on or in connection with such work.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.

CO-OPERATION IN AGRICULTURE.

Captain WATERHOUSE: I beg to give notice that, on this day two weeks, I will call attention to the necessity of co-operation in agriculture, and move a Resolution.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Mr. CRAWFORD GREENE: I beg to give notice that, on this day two weeks, I will call attention to Empire Settlement and Development, and move a Resolution.

RURAL APPRENTICESHIPS.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I beg to notice that, on this day two weeks, I will call attention to the question of rural apprenticeships, and move a Resolution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister how far it is proposed to go to-night?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is proposed to take the first four Orders.

Mr. MacDONALD: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that the last item, namely, Class 7, Vote 3, is on a very important subject which came up at a very late hour last night; and whether he does not think it would be convenient if that Vote were brought on earlier in the day. As it is, the hour will probably be late when it is reached.

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no desire that the House should be kept up late, and as, in taking the Report stages the other evening, we did not proceed late with obviously contentious matters, so I should not press this matter if it came on at a late hour. By a late hour. I mean after Twelve o'clock.

Mr. MacDONALD: I only ask because the Committee stage of this Vote came on very late, and was very inadequately discussed.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 129.

Division No. 56.]
AYES.
[3.48 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Berry, Sir George
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Betterton, Henry B.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan


Albery, Irving James
Boothby, R. J. G.
Burman, J. B.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L' pool, W. Derby)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brass, Captain W.
Campbell, E. T.


Apsley, Lord
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Briggs, J. Harold
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)


Astor, Viscountess
Briscoe, Richard George
Cazalet,Captain Victor A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Christie, J. A.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Remer, J. R.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Remnant, Sir James


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Ropner, Major L.


Cope, Major William
Huntingfield, Lord
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Couper, J. B.
Hurd, Percy A.
Salmon, Major I.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Jacob, A. E.
Savery, S. S.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jephcott, A. R.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd. Hemel Hempst' d)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Shepperson, E. W.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Skelton, A. N.


Dawson, Sir Philip
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Smithers, Waldron


Eden, Captain Anthony
Knox, Sir Alfred
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lamb, J. O.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Elveden, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


England, Colonel A.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Looker, Herbert William
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lougher, L.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lumley, L. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Fermoy, Lord
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Tasker, Major R. Inlgo


Fielden, E. B.
Macintyre, Ian
Templeton, W. P.


Finburgh, S.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Forrest, W.
McLean, Major A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macquisten, F. A.
Tinne, J. A.


Ganzonl, Sir John
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Gates, Percy
Malone, Major P. B.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gee, Captain R.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Margesson, Captain D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Waddington, R.


Goff, Sir Park
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Gower, Sir Robert
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Grace, John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Grant, J. A.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moles, Thomas
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Watts, Dr. T.


Gretton, Colonel John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wells, S. R.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E
Murchison, C. K.
White, Lieut. Colonel G. Dalrymple


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams. Corn. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hammersley, S. S.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hanbury, C.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Harrison, G. J. C.
Nuttall, Ellis
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hartington, Marquess of
Oakley, T.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wolmer, Viscount


Haslam, Henry C.
Fenny, Frederick George
Womersley, W. J.


Hawke, John Anthony
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Philipson, Mabel
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Filcher, G.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton



Herbert, S. (York. N. R.. Scar. & Wh'by)
Preston, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hills, Major John Waller
Price, Major C. W. M.
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry Barnston.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ramsden, E.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Cape, Thomas


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hllisbro')
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Charleton, H. C.


Amnion, Charles George
Briant, Frank
Cluse, W. S.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Broad, F. A.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Baker, Walter
Bromfield, William
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bromley, J.
Compton, Joseph


Barnes, A,
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Connolly, M.


Barr, J.
Buchanan, G.
Cove, W. G.


Batey, Joseph
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Dalton, Hugh




Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Day, Colonel Harry
Kenyon, Barnet
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Dennison, R.
Kirkwood, D.
Stamford, T. W.


Duncan, C.
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Dunnico, H.
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Fenby, T. D.
Lunn, William
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Gibbins, Joseph
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Gillett, George M.
Mackinder, W.
Thurtle, E.


Gosling, Harry
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan.)
Tinker, John Joseph


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Townend, A. E.


Greenall, T.
March, S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Montague, Frederick
Varley, Frank B.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Naylor, T. E.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Groves, T.
Owen, Major G.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Grundy, T. W.
Palin, John Henry
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Guest, J. (York, Hermsworth)
Paling, W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Welsh, J. C.


Harris, Percy A.
Potts, John S.
Westwood, J.


Hayday, Arthu
Purcell, A. A.
Whiteley, W.


Hayes, John Henry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wiggins, William Martin


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Rose, Frank H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Hirst, G. H.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scrymgeour, E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Scurr, John
Windsor, Walter


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wright, W.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond



Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.Charles Edwards.

REAR REFLECTORS ON CYCLES.

Captain BRASS: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the carrying of rear reflectors on cycles.
I do this in no party spirit at all. I do it with one object, and one object alone, and that is to try to make the roads of this country a little safer than they are at present for the great mass of the people who use them. It is for this reason that I appeal to all Members of the House, entirely regardless of party, to support this Bill and give me an opportunity of bringing it in. During the War it was compulsory for all cyclists to carry a red light at the back. That was considered necessary because they were almost invisible in the restricted light, owing to the fact that headlights were not allowed during the War. Since the War the number of bicyclists in the country has enormously increased, and to-day it is estimated that we have something between 5,000,000 and 6,000,000 bicyclists in the country. There are, perhaps, 1,250,000 motor vehicles in the country, and these motor vehicles are increasing at the rate of about 3,000 a week. The result is that you get complaints from bicyclists because the head lights of the motor cars are too strong. I have great sympathy
with the bicyclists on that point, and I think they will realise, if they will only carry some sort of reflector behind, that it will not be so necessary to' have such strong head lights. At the moment, it is very difficult to see a bicyclist with an ordinary head light unless he has some form of reflector behind, and I feel quite certain that the real reason bicyclists will not agree, if they do not agree, to this suggestion is simply because they do not understand the danger. I myself have taken a bicyclist who had never been out at night in my car, and have shown him the danger. He realised that bicyclists were not visible, or not easily visible, at night, and the effect was that he immediately bought a reflector, and placed it on the back of his bicycle.
I am not asking the House to sanction a Bill to force bicyclists to put oil lamps at the back. The reason I do not do that is because it is a very difficult thing to keep one of these lamps alight. I know it, being an old motorist and having, perhaps, driven some 300,000 miles. In the early days of motoring we had not electric lights, and we had to have oil lamps. There was great difficulty in keeping the lamps alight, and there were a lot of petty prosecutions by the police for infringements of the Regulations. I
do not want bicyclists to be prosecuted in that way, and it is for that reason I do not wish to call upon them to carry rear lamps. I remember in the early days of motoring that a friend of mine was always being prosecuted for not having a red lamp alight at the back. He said he could not keep it alight. As the result of many prosecutions; he decided that he would always keep it out. He placed it in such a position that the exhaust of the motor car always played upon it, and, when the police asked him why the lamp was not alight, he said, "It is strange it is not alight, but, if you feel it, you will find it warm." They did, and finding it warm thought that it had only just gone out. I am afraid that bicyclists are not able to do that, because they have not got the necessary exhaust.
It has been suggested that discs or possibly armlets or anklets made of white stuff to put on the arm or ankle might be used, but I am told that the real reflector is a pair of pink silk stockings. I remember hon. Members opposite during the Debate on the Silk Duties telling us that it was necessary for the health of the proletariat that they should all wear silk stockings. I do not think we should ask every lady who rides a bicycle to promise to wear silk stockings—[HON. MEMBERS: "Red stockings!"]—or red stockings. I do not think that red would show up quite so well.
It really is a very important matter, and we should ask the bicyclists of this country to carry a red disc at the back. There is no doubt that a red disc, if it is properly made and placed in the right position, will reflect back the lights from vehicles following, and in that way a great number of lives and accidents will be saved. As a matter of fact, this is actually the law in France to-day. I was reading the Code de la Rue the other day, and I found that the explanation for reflectors being placed on bicycles under the law in France was because it was the common practice in this country. I think we should come up to France, and pass a law in this country to make bicyclists and tricyclists, if there are any left, carry some form of red reflector at the back. I consider that this is a very urgent matter indeed. It is a matter that is really of vital importance to the
people of this country. I feel that motorists and bicyclists, if they realised the danger, would only be too pleased and anxious to put these red reflectors at the back of their bicycles, and it is for that reason I ask the House to give me the opportunity of bringing in the Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry that the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Captain Brass) has not converted me to sympathise with road scorchers, because that is what this Bill really means. We know that he is a most careful driver. He once drove me in his car, so I know what I am talking about. But if it gets about that all cyclists are to carry these red discs, then these gentlemen who do not know the courtesies of the road and who drive too fast at night will think they have licence to drive even faster. The hon. and gallant Member says that his only object is to make the roads safer for the great mass of the people who use them. He seems to think that the only users of the roads are motorists and bicyclists. They are the only people he mentioned, except tricyclists, and he made a rather jeering remark as to whether there might be any tricyclists left, though I imagine there are many aged men who still ride tricycles. There are, however, many other users of the roads. There are horsemen, there are men who drive cattle and sheep, and there are pedestrians, and, if motorists think that they would 'be able to distinguish the cyclists better and therefore drive as fast as they like, the roads would not be made safer for the great mass of the people who use them, but more dangerous.
That is the first ground of my objection and the second is this: This is only one step towards making it compulsory for cyclists to carry rear lights. This is the first step forward, and the only thing that surprises me is that the hon. and gallant Member should pick out the colour red for the rear discs. If cyclists are to carry these discs it would be just as logical to say that horsemen should carry discs hung round their necks or on their backs, that every sheep should have a red disc on its tail, that every animal on the road should have a red reflector, that every policeman
patrolling the country roads at night should have a red reflector on his back, and that every pedestrian and every pair of lovers going along the road should have red reflectors on their backs or be liable to prosecution. That is just as sensible as in the case of cyclists. The fact of the matter is that motorists ought to drive more carefully. No one should proceed at night at a greater speed than he can pull up within the range of his head light. That is the real answer to this menace of the roads.
What right has the hon. and gallant Member to bring in a Bill of this sort to make it compulsory for red reflectors to be carried by over 5,000,000 of the lieges who happen to be cyclists. The proper place to introduce such a proposal is in the long overdue Bill—I think it is to be called the Road Vehicles Bill—in which many of these questions are going to be dealt with. That is the

proper place for proposing these compulsory red reflectors. Then we can deal with some of the other questions, including the question of the speed of these gentlemen at night. It is unfair to pick out the cyclists for this special treatment and this special tax. This Bill is uncalled for, it is unnecessary, and it will only encourage dangerous motorists, who I am glad to say are the minority, and whom all good motorists and respectable citizens ought to wish to discourage in every possible way. For these reasons, I hope that the House will reject this Bill.

Question put,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the carrying of rear reflectors on cycles.

The House divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 71.

Division No. 57.]
AYES.
[4.12 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Couper, J. B.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cove, W. G.
Greenall, T.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Albery, Irving James
Craik, Rt. Hen. Sir Henry
Gretton, Colonel John


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Crookshank, Col. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Dalton, Hugh
Hanbury, C.


Apsley, Lord
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent. Dover)
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hartington, Marquess of


Astor, Viscountess
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Davies. Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Haslam, Henry C.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Day, Colonel Harry
Hawke, John Anthony


Barr, J.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hayday, Arthur


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Dennison, R.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Duncan, C.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Dunnico, H.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Eden, Captain Anthony
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Hills, Major John Waller


Briggs, J. Harold
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Briscoe, Richard George
England, Colonel A.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Fenby, T. D.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whlteh'n)


Burman, J. B.
Fermoy, Lord
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fielden, E. B.
Huntingfield, Lord


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Finburgh, S.
Hurd, Percy A.


Campbell, E. T.
Forrest, W.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Jacob. A. E.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Ganzonl. Sir John
Jephcott, A. R.


Charleton, H. C.
Gates, Percy
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gee, Captain R.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Christie, J. A.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Got), Sir Park
Kenyon, Barnet


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Gosling, Harry
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Compton, Joseph
Gower, Sir Robert
Knox, Sir Alfred


Connolly, M.
Grace, John
Lamb, J. Q.


Cooper, A. Dull
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lansbury, George


Cope, Major William
Grant, J. A.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Looker, Herbert William
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Lougher, L.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Lowth, T.
Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Tinker, John Joseph


Lumley, L. R.
Ropner, Major L.
Tinne, J. A.


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Rose, Frank H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Mackinder, W.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


McLean, Major A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Varley, Frank B.


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Salmon, Major I.
Waddington, R.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Ward. Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


March, S.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Margesson, Captain D.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Warrender, Sir Victor


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sandon, Lord
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Savery, S. S.
Watts, Dr. T.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Wells, S. R.


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Scrymgeour, E.
Welsh, J. C.


Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Scurr, John
Westwood, J.


Montague, Frederick
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W.)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Shepperson, E. W.
Whiteley, W.


Murchison, C. K.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne,, C.)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Nuttall, Ellis
Smithers, Waldron
Wilson. M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Snell, Harry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Owen, Major G.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Palin, John Henry
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Paling, W.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan)
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Womersley, W. J.


Penny, Frederick George
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Philipson, Mabel
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Wright, W.


Pitcher, G.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Power, Sir John Cecil
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Preston, William
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.



Price, Major C. W. M.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain Brass and Sir F. Meyer.


Ramsden, E.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Amman, Charles George
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Baker, Walter
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barnes, A.
Hayes, John Henry
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stamford, T. W.


Briant, Frank
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Broad, F. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Bromfield, William
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kirkwood, D.
Thurtle, E.


Buchanan, G.
Lawson, John Jamie
Townend, A. E.


Cape, Thomas
Lunn, William
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Cluse, W. S.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Viant, S. P.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Macquisten, F. A.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Malone, Major P. B.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Morris, R. H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morrison. R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Gibbins, Joseph
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and Sir Wilfrid Sugden.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool
Pureed, A. A.



Groves, T.
Remnant, Sir James

Bill ordered to be brought in by Captain Brass, Sir Frank Meyer, Sir Edward Iliffe, Miss Wilkinson, Mr. Beckett, Mr. Charleton, Mr. John Hugh Edwards, and Captain Arthur Hope.

REAR REFLECTORS ON CYCLES BILL,

"to require the carrying of rear reflectors on cycles," presented accord-
ingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 51.]

SELECTION (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had
come to the following Resolutions, which they had directed him to report to the House:

(1) "That any Member of the Chairmen's Panel may and he is hereby empowered to ask any other Member of the Chairmen's Panel to take his place temporarily in case of necessity."
(2) "That, in the absence of the Chairman of the Chairmen's Panel, the Panel may be convened at the request of any two Members of the Panel."
(3) "That where, on two successive sittings of a Standing Committee called for the consideration of a particular Bill, the Committee has to be adjourned by reason of the absence of a quorum within the first twenty minutes of the time for which the said Committee was summoned, the Chairman do instruct the Clerk to place the particular Bill at the bottom of the list of Bills then waiting consideration of that Committee, and that the Committee shall forthwith be convened to consider the other Bill or Bills then waiting."
(4) "That it is the undoubted and established right of the Chairman who is appointed to a Standing Committee for the consideration of a particular Bill to name the day and hour on which the consideration of the Bill shall begin."

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Short to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Re-election of Ministers Bill), Sir Robert Sanders (in respect of the Criminal Justice (Increase of Penalties) Bill), Sir Cyril Cobb (in respect of the Adoption of Children Bill), and Mr. Ellis Davies (in respect of the Births and Deaths Registration Bill); and that they had appointed Mr. James Brown to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Allotments (Scotland) Bill).

Reports to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Lieut. Colonel Vivian Henderson; and had appointed' in substitution: Major Ruggles-Brise.

Report to lie upon the Table.

BILLS PRESENTED.

MERCHANDISE MARKS (IMPORTED GOODS) BILL,

"to require an indication of origin to be given in the case of certain imported goods," presented by Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER; supported by Mr. Amery, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, Mr. Guinness, Sir John Gilmour, and Sir Burton Chadwick; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL,

"to extend further the duration of The Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1923," presented by Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN; to be read a Second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

Orders of the Day — TRADE FACILITIES BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I dealt quite recently, in moving the Financial Resolution on which this Bill is based, with the principles underlying the Bill, with which the House was already familiar, and gave the reasons why it is necessary for us to bring in the Bill at this period of the Session, and the amount of money which it is asked to put at the disposal of the Government for the purpose of the loans. I am very reluctant to repeat anything that I said on that occasion, but, really, there is extremely little to be said as to the general principles, which I outlined then, and as the various objections that may be raised in the form of Amendments to the Bill will, I think, be more appropriately dealt with when we get into Committee, I hope to occupy a very short time of the House, and to leave until we get into Committees those specific Amendments that may be raised in different parts of the House. But I ought, perhaps, to remind or inform any hon. Members who have not hitherto given attention to this legislation, very shortly what the purpose of the Bill is. The main purpose is to give employment to skilled men in their own industries, and to do that by stimulating orders for the products of those industries.
The purpose of the Act is to encourage the outlay of capital in productive enterprises, and the object of limiting the scope of the Bill to capital undertakings, as explained when the first Act was passed in 1921, was to prevent it operating to keep up prices. It was pointed out then—and I think experience has justified what was then said—that by the promotion of capital undertakings in this way, the tendency is to increase the amount of goods produced—one cannot say, of course, how far that tendency goes at any one time—and to reduce the cost of their production.
The principle of the method of working these Acts is that the Treasury should
have power to guarantee loans to be raised when they are satisfied that the proceeds are to be applied towards the carrying out of any such capital undertaking, or in the purchase of articles produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom, and required for the purpose of the undertaking, and if they are also satisfied that the guarantee of the loan itself is calculated to provide employment in this country. I mentioned, in speaking on the Financial Resolution, that there is, as the House knows, an Advisory Committee to advise the Treasury with regard to these loans, and I referred to the language used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1921, in which he laid down the position of that Committee, and showed the extent to which it was to be given a free hand.
I ought, perhaps, to say a word more with regard to the manner of proceeding under this Bill. I submit that the Government guarantees, covering the spending of large sums of money for the purposes named, ought to have a substantial effect upon employment. Quite obviously, if it does not do that, to the extent that it fails to do that it fails of the purpose for which this legislation was first inaugurated. The undertakings for which the loans are given keep a record, so far as it is possible to do so of the amount of employment given by the works carried out by the proceeds of the loans. They are enabled, no doubt, to do that so far as the effect of the loans upon the undertaking is direct, but that gives a very imperfect idea of the amount of employment which may be-attributed to the system, when, as I also pointed out on the Financial Resolution, it is provided that all the plant, machinery and materials required in connection with the works to be undertaken shall be purchased in Great Britain at the lowest prices on a competitive basis under contracts requiring the contractors to certify on their own behalf, and on behalf of sub-contractors, the amount of machinery or material that has been supplied wholly of British manufacture.
It does not, I think, require very much demonstration that the guarantee of a loan granted to some undertaking, which induces that undertaking either to start works which otherwise would not be undertaken at all, or to anticipate works which otherwise might not have been
undertaken for a very considerable time, under such contract as that which I have outlined, must have the effect, I will not say of producing employment which otherwise never would have been produced, but, in the opinion of the Government, it is of very vital importance to accelerate employment, and, possibly, to stimulate it just in those parts where that stimulus to employment would be of the most benefit. The other day I saw an interesting article by the right hon. Gentleman on this legislation. I do not want, as I have said, to anticipate any comment that would be more appropriate to Committee, but if I accept that article as expressing the general views of the right hon. Gentleman, his chief complaint would appear to be the very trifling sum which we are asking for in this Bill; because he spoke rather contemptuously of the paltry £40,000,000, or £30,000,000, or £25,000,000 which had been given under previous Acts. He seemed to think that £150,000,000 was more the appropriate figure. Without going into the article more fully, at all events, the attitude there indicates, I think, that my right hon. Friend is not hostile to the principle of this legislation; the only thing is that he thinks that it does not go far enough.
The reason why I ask the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill to-day is that the existing Act expires on the 31st of this month; therefore, if this legislation is to be continued, I submit to the House that we must pass this particular Bill before the close of the present financial year. As I intimated the other day £65,000,000 out of the £70,000,000 authorised by the Committee last year has been expended or will have been expended by the end of the year. The raising of the maximum figure from £70,000,000 to £75,000,000 places £10,000,000 for the ensuing 12 months at the disposal of the Treasury for this purpose. I think my right hon. Friend opposite thinks this is an utterly contemptible sum and falls far short of his aspirations; yet I hope he will not refuse consent to the Second Reading of this Bill, and that he will advise his hon. Friends to do as he does.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: The House is indebted to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for the introductory statement that he has just made in regard to this Bill, but I think that hon.
Members in all parts of the House will agree that during the time that this legislation has been under discussion in this Chamber there has been always two very definite points of view. The one was that this legislation was thoroughly undesirable; the other that it should be encouraged with certain safeguards which from time to time might be laid down. It is extremely difficult within the range of our Debate to-day to say anything new upon this subject. I think, however, a very useful purpose can be served if we on the Second Reading of this Bill, review some of the larger problems which are raised by the Measure itself, and by the introductory statement of the Financial Secretary.
The Bill falls into the usual two parts; the provision for the continuance of Export credits, and the other, and larger part, dealing with the scheme of trade facilities. May I say only one or two words about Export Credits. In the controversy which took place in this House yesterday on the Supplementary Estimate, we ascertained for the first time, I think clearly and definitely, the view of at least certain Members of the Government in regard to export credits for Russian trade. The principle of that part of the legislation has always been perfectly plain. Those export credits are provided for guaranteeing at a premium to cover the risk, mercantile Bills for the express purpose of encouraging exports from this country and in order to stimulate employment. While it is true that the Schedule in the original Act of 1920 included a certain number of countries there was an understanding that these would be extended, and in any case we understood that the real test of any application being allowed was the kind of security that should be provided. That matter, of course, was one for the Advisory Committee. While I do not for the moment dispute that the Government of the day must always make up its mind on the broad policy, the matter of the application is to be left with the Committee. In the course of yesterday's Debate the Overseas Trade Department, reinforced by the Home Secretary stated as a broad principle that any application for guarantees that covered Russian trade was ruled out. It will not be entertained at the present
time. I do not propose to enlarge upon our views on this side as to the general economic and political policy of the Russian people.
A very important consideration emerges, however, when we assume this afternoon in the House of Commons that a perfectly good proposal coming from some company or firm of repute proposing to undertake trade with Russia is a transaction that will not be approved. As we understood yesterday's statement not only is the present position thoroughly undesirable from any point of view in international trade, but it is perfectly unjust as between individual traders in this country. We come here with legislation of this kind and we provide for these guarantees, in both departments of the Bill, on the broad credit of the British people. They are responsible in the last resource if there is any loss. Under any programme which we put forward in a matter of this kind traders are at least entitled to equality of treatment. Why should they be penalised? Why should they be refused a guarantee because of the political or economic views which the Members of the present Government hold? A situation of this kind is altogether unjust, and I venture to say was never contemplated under this legislation. The House will at once observe that I personally, and I think hon. Members on this side, have not recommended an unsound transaction. I am pleading for a perfectly sound case, and that the guarantee should not be refused because of the particular position, organisation, and practice of the Russian State. That is all I need to say on the purely export credits side of this scheme.
We come now to what is far more important as regard the general finance and guarantee, mainly the large scale provision for trade facilities. As the Financial Secretary quite rightly pointed out, this is designed to guarantee loans, as to principal and interest, which are raised in the open market either by public bodies or private firms embarking upon capital expenditure which, in our judgment, will provide employment in this country. In other words, it is to use our credit, within certain limits, in order to try to help great numbers of people who are out of work at the present time, and at the same time minister to the
growth of our general economic capacity. These it seems to me are the principles of this measure. We have had four or five years' experience. Having been once on the other side of the House, and having had the duty which now falls to my right hon. Friend of promoting a Bill of this kind in the House of Commons, I am well aware that this is legislation of a controversial kind, especially as to some parts of it. My hon. Friend opposite the Member for one of the Divisions of Aberdeenshire suggested yesterday that the time had arrived when the whole subject of trade facilities should be subject to review by some competent committee. May I say at once that I am in complete agreement with a suggestion of that kind. The time has arrived when we require something more than a general Debate in this House or even a detailed Debate.
First of all there has been a great deal of debate and investigation as to the classes of guarantee which are covered by this Measure. The whole of the time we were in office there was very strong criticism of the guarantees which -were given to large shipbuilding and other undertakings in this country. Hon. Members pleaded with very great force that inasmuch as much of the shipping could not find remunerative employment this was a dangerous form of guarantee to give. We all knew that guarantees to shipbuilding firms were, as it was thought at the time, likely to aggravate unemployment in time to come by adding to unremunerative tonnage, and on the other hand, there was the very strong pull by hon. Members who represented some of the shipbuilding constituencies, and more particularly the strong opinion of Members in many parts of the House who were face to face with grave unemployment in the engineering and shipbuilding trades. They came to us and said that there should be no stoppage of the guarantees for shipbuilding, but the proceedings should be watched with very great care. That is one case of difficulty under this legislation. There are other large guarantees which hon. Members have on the White Paper which has been issued and I have no doubt further applications will be made in the near future.
What is to be the policy of this House to applications of that kind? How are we to deal with schemes of the
sort involving capital expenditure in important industries like shipbuilding, which are subject to active controversy at the present time? I venture to think that able as an Advisory Committee may be in a matter of this kind, the work of the Advisory Committee is necessarily largely confined to individual applications which are presented to it. It is true that they may discuss policy or try to review the whole situation, but, after all, that is in reality a matter for this House. It is a matter for this House instructed by some competent committee which has reviewed the whole situation, and on the broad facts of the case, has presented proposals. Then there has always been criticism to the effect that small men are regarded as being excluded from this scheme and that a certain class of people, who cannot put up perfectly strong security, do not get a guarantee. Quite frankly, I have never been very much impressed by the contention regarding small men, because, after an analysis of many cases, I came to the conclusion that the real test was the security, and that these people very often could not put up a security upon which we should be justified in risking the money of the people, even by way of guarantee. I trust, however, there is no tendency towards excluding people merely because they are small traders, because a fair amount of unemployment is highly local in character and some of the unemployment could be relieved by a form of guarantee to the smaller industries under legislation of this character.
That, however, is not really the large point at issue, which is as to the policy on the broad question of security, which the Government are going to pursue under the Trade Facilities Act. Hon. Members opposite, and, indeed, in all parts of the House, have asked why we give a guarantee under the Trade Facilities Act to a large railway undertaking which would have raised the money quite easily in the open market without this guarantee? Why did we give it to some powerful combine whose name commands universal respect in financial circles? That is a difficult point to meet, and all the more difficult when we plead for equality before the law for all sections
of the community. If there was the slightest proof that with the assistance of the guarantee they could raise the money rather more easily in the open market and so facilitate their under taking work, I would be inclined to say the preliminary conditions were satisfied in such an application; but it seems clear to many hon. Members, quite irrespective of party, that, if these firms would go on with the work in any case, we should try to give preference to those undertakings whose security is perfectly good, but who have just a little harder struggle than the more powerful undertakings. It may be a matter of a very delicate balance with them—the guarantee may make all the difference in the world as to whether they undertake the work or not. If they get the guarantee, the work goes on; if they are refused the guarantee because their security is not quite perfect, then, of course, unemployment will not be assisted. Speaking as one who has tried to look into the heart of this legislation, I offer the suggestion to the House this afternoon that we shall best discharge our duty in the matter of providing employment, or maximum employment, if we try to give the benefit of this legislation to those undertakings that are perfectly sound, but are not of the gilt-edged or perfectly secure class of great combines or other undertakings such as have been largely guaranteed so far. That is eminently a matter for the investigation of a Committee, and there are already two or three other point which, I daresay, Members agree are well worth such inquiry.
I come now to the third and, apart from one larger consideration, the last part of the argument I venture to offer to the House. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury was kind enough a minute or two ago to quote an extract from a newspaper article in which I made some reference to this scheme. May I try to explain the real meaning of the proposals that were then advanced? Whatever view the House takes of this legislation, we are committed to it for 20 or 30 years or, for all I know, a still longer period, because the guarantees cover the period I have mentioned, and the legislation will continue even if we do not increase the aggregate amount guaranteed. Therefore, it seems rather idle for the House to discuss whether the legislation is to be wiped
out or abandoned at an early date. In point of fact, we could not do that without a certain violation of our contract or obligation. We are committed to this for a very considerable period.
The real question which faces us is, Are we making the best use of our restored British credit in our own interests within Great Britain? This is a very convenient Bill upon which to base that question. Not only are we shouldering enormous obligations arising out of the War, we are writing off large sums from the amounts owing to us by Allies on the Continent, and we have shouldered all the burdens of the return to the gold standard, which is represented in its acutest form by unemployed men and women and by a price level which undoubtedly introduces difficulties for many sections of British industry and commerce. We have done all that on the broad argument that it is restoring British credit, and I entirely agree; it is probably a perfectly sound policy; but surely the time has come when we are entitled to ask ourselves when we are going to get the benefit of that restored credit for 1,250,000 people who are still out of employment in this country.
The argument is, that we have to choose between some kind of contingent risk, which might be involved in the extension of the guarantees under this legislation, and the continued payment of unemployment benefit, which produces no capital asset at all, and this at a time when the industrial capacity of our people is, by common consent, being steadily impaired. Even if in the last resource we had to pay a million or two of money under guarantees, would not that be infinitely cheaper than the millions we are pouring out now in mere relief? Attention has been drawn to the fact that since the War concluded we have paid at least £250,000,000 in one form of unemployment assistance or another, against which we have to-day no capital asset worth the name. That is a remarkable thing, and if it is a question of credit, we ought to face the issue quite fairly. My view is, that this legislation will not pass away. I am not recommending to the House one guarantee of an unsafe or useless character, because that does not help unemployment in the very least. The real argument here is a plea for perfectly sound guarantees, but on rather more
imaginative lines, for the express purpose of trying at an earlier date to reduce the numbers of our unemployed, using the great machinery and strength of British credit to that end.
I have one other point to make, and here I come into sharp conflict with the economic ideas of hon. Members opposite, but the issue must be faced. During the past few years we have been embarking on one form of subsidy after another, and all, guarantees and subsidies, have, of course, been provided at the expense of the public. Under trade facilities and export credits together we have provided by way of guarantee as to principal and interest, about £100,000,000 in all, £75,000,000 being under trade facilities and about £26,000,000 as maximum under export credits. Then we have given something by way of direct subsidy to the sugar beet industry; and we have helped in other directions. Our case is that the time has come when we must ask the country, and endeavour to get a decision from this House, as to whether we can go on giving guarantees or subsidies to privately-run industries without claiming for the public a right in the ownership of the assets they have helped to create. That is the principle we venture to lay down this afternoon. Hon Members opposite may say that this legislation was designed to provide employment, and that the State gets the benefit of such employment as it encouraged; but that is not a complete reply to the suggestion I have made.
Other industries are carrying on without a guarantee, very often in more difficult circumstances, and they are not getting the benefit of this legislation. Moreover, if it is the case that many of these undertakings can raise money on the open market on rather easier terms with this guarantee than they could without it, then clearly the difference is the measure of the subsidy we give to these firms. I agree that they do not get a subsidy in actual cash, but they get the benefit of the cheaper or easier capital accommodation, and there are other advantages attached. This House is the trustee, theoretically, of all the resources of the British people, and I invite hon. Members to put themselves in the position of a trustee for a privately-owned concern, or, indeed, any other property, and ask themselves whether they would
be entitled to pledge the credit of the people for whom they were acting unless they had been able to secure some service or right in respect of the risk they undertook. Here we are taking a risk of about £100,000,000 of contingent liability, which to that extent affects our credit, and for which the masses of the people to that extent pay, and yet we do not enter into the capital asset at all.
We raised this issue on beet sugar, when it was before the House some time ago, and I would like to recall the reply that was given to us by the then Minister of Agriculture, now the Viceroy of India. He said, broadly speaking, that he was with us on this principle, he agreed that it was sound that such a claim should be made, but, he said, he was obliged to resist us and he was reinforced by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who said he must resist us because this is public ownership, or Socialism, by a side door. That is an example of the hostility that the mention of such a word conjures up in the House at the present time. We on this side plead for public ownership because we believe it is an inevitable development of the industrial system, and whether hon. Members agree with us or not, they cannot deny the fact that we have no right to use the credit and resources of 44,000,000 people unless we are able to say to them that there is a part of the capital asset belonging to them which their credit and their guarantee have gone to build up. We shall put forward an Amendment on those lines during the later stages of this legislation, but I venture to suggest that the three or four points which have been very briefly, and I fear imperfectly, summarised are sufficient material for the committee of investigation which has been suggested, and that it ought to be undertaken at the earliest possible moment, in order that this legislation may make its just contribution to the relief of the difficulty and, indeed, the tragedy of the British unemployed.

5.0 P.M.

Commander WILLIAMS: I rise to put a point of view which was put the other night very ably by several hon. Members, and which I think, if carried out, would go a long way towards making an end to the necessity for this particular kind of legislation. I know that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is naturally
very fond of this particular Measure. It is one of the relics of the Coalition, and we were all amused at the kindly way in which the right hon. Gentleman has been nursing this Measure from time to time. I sometimes think, when we are looking at this Bill and dealing with questions of this kind, and manipulating British finance, whether one way or another that really British finance as a whole would be much better off if, instead of the Government interfering so much, we went back to the old sound principle of pre-war days. It seems to me absolutely wrong, at the present time, that you should by way of credit give a definite and clear subsidy to this or that firm. There can be no doubt that as far as this Measure is concerned it does enable particular firms and industries to go to the banks and go into the money market and get their money at a lower rate of interest than they would otherwise get it, and that seems to me thoroughly unsound finance. I do not mean to say that we have not a very excellent Committee dealing with these things, but one firm may be able to put a point rather more clearly than another, and there is a very general feeling among a considerable number of very well informed people that, although you have a first-class Committee dealing with these matters, sometimes a firm with a little bit happier advocacy gets in when another firm quite as useful from the point of view of relieving unemployment would be dropped out, and would not obtain any help under this particular subsidy.
Another important point is that you have got in the country to-day, on the whole, a very sound financial position. I know you have got your troubles, as for example the unemployment question, but I do think that while you go on as you are doing to-day, giving these various subventions to industry, it is creating an impression of weakness in the country, whereas if you could stop this you would do a great deal towards strengthening British capital at the present time. Generally speaking, this method is absolutely useless and inadequate for dealing with the real object of this Bill, which is the matter of unemployment. You have to take the men who are out of work, and the men who have money to invest and bring them together and go
into some big foreign market, and often embark on a really risky enterprise in the hope that we shall get into those markets with our British goods before the foreigner gets there.
That is the real object of the. Bill. The greatest condemnation of this Measure to my mind is that you have given all these guarantees, and they have gone on all these years and you have had very few losses. I do not want to see losses made and placed on the backs of the taxpayers, but if this Bill is to be of any value, there should be more real enterprise, and more of the old-fashioned British spirit which took us into the Hudson Bay Company and other big companies where you had a real spirit of adventure, and where inevitably you had to have great losses coupled with great gains. From that point of view this Bill has been a real failure.
This Bill as it stands to-day is really rather like someone going to a great reservoir and trying to fill it up with a teacup when you have a very bad leak at the bottom. You have in this country the supply of capital which is absolutely essential to these enterprises, but it is necessary that that capital should increase. I know you are proposing to help it to the extent of one-half or one per cent. but at the same time you are taking away the capital and expending something like £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 in capital taxation. What is the use of encouraging capital in a small way on the one hand, and taking great blocks out of the capital of this country and expending it on the other hand? It would be wiser if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would lay down that he was going to gradually drop this Measure and eliminate all taxation on capital, and that would do more to encourage industry to-day than anything else. [An HON. MEMBER: "Carried unanimously!"] A large number of hon. Members opposite do not want to encourage capital, but there is also a large number who realise its value. Every time you attack capital, you are attacking the wages of the workers. That is why the Conservative party wishes to see very much greater development of industry everywhere, not for the sake of one side, but for the sake of everyone in the country.
The next point was that a suggestion was made the other day in a Resolution
to the effect that, if the Government could not see their way to withdraw this Measure now, or to announce clearly when it should be withdrawn they should at any rate consider the possibility of taking steps towards the withdrawal of this kind of legislation. The first step which some of us thought might be taken was that the Government could announce that after next year, or even now, they would go on guaranteeing this new £5,000,000 or £10,000,000 we are asked to guarantee, but that we should not guarantee the interest upon it after next year. That would be a step towards getting rid of this system) and that is why I ask the Government to seriously consider the whole position again. This is a subsidy and it is not one of the best sort. It is diverting capital sometimes unwisely and sometimes exceedingly well, as in the case of sugar beet, but it is not doing anything like enough in the direction of encouraging the development of industry, and nothing like as much as we thought it was going to do when these proposals were first made.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The speech of the Ex-Financial Secretary to the Treasury on this Measure was logical. It led up to the point that this kind of assistance given to industry has one inevitable end, that is, the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. I think my right hon. Friend was quite justified in that statement, and I should support him in any proposals which were reasonable and likely to be effective for securing to the State some of the advantages which it is claimed are actually created by giving guarantees under the Trade Facilities Act.
Meanwhile, may I point out some of the disadvantages under which we have already laboured owing to the advances or guarantees made during the last four years? In the first place, the selection of concerns was not done on any settled principle, and it could not be done on any settled principle. It was quite sporadic. Applications were sent to the Treasury and transferred to the Advisory Committee, and they said whether or not a particular application complied with the requirements of the Act. Then the Treasury issues its certificate, and there is a flotation on the market. There is a selection of those concerns with no immediate relation to the trade of the
country as a whole. In many cases the advances made benefit one particular firm and do injury to another firm, and they create new forms of competition of all sorts quite uncalled for by the necessities of the trade of the world. Therefore, these advances, whilst conferring an advantage on those who get State assistance, put a good many concerns who wish to be free from the restrictions placed upon them under a grave disadvantage, because while many of them were struggling just as gallantly to get over the depression, they have to pay now for capital 1 per cent. or l½ per cent. more than the privileged concerns which have run the gauntlet of the Treasury and the Advisory Committee. That can only be justified by taking every case on its merits. But in doing that no general principle was adopted by the Treasury or the Advisory Committee. It is true the accepted firms complied with certain conditions laid down in the Act, but by acting in this way a broad survey could not be taken of the necessities of British industry and commerce, and the Treasury were not able to look very carefully after British interests broadly.
Let me give an instance. The Treasury sanctioned two advances to an Italian shipping company. They did this at the very time when the Italian Government, by decrees, was making it impossible for British ships to exercise their proper functions in regard to the carrying of Italian emigrants, and British ships were put under a disability in that way. It is rather remarkable that, at that very moment, the Treasury were sanctioning a very large sum, of money to an Italian company which was allowed to trade from Italian ports under favoured conditions, and which was receiving an advantage in regard to their capital of something like 1½ per cent. or more as compared with British shipping companies. That is not fair to the British concerns which have been carrying on as well as they could under most difficult circumstances caused by bad trade and Government Regulations in other ports without as much assistance from our Government as they had every right to expect.
Moreover, there has been a spreading out of these advances into industries such as the one approved by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. It
is a remarkable fact that in regard to the sugar-beet industry the subsidy comes to about twopence for every twopenny-worth of the produce. At the very time when we were doing that we gave an additional advantage to the company promoters, who naturally took advantage of such a handsome offer, and we gave them the privilege of getting the capital for their factories under the Trade Facilities Act. They might have gone into the market and taken the ordinary market rates, and financed those concerns themselves. I do not suggest that either the Treasury or the Advisory Committee played knowingly into the hands of company promoters, but that was the effect. Company promotion in this connection on such a scale will not relieve unemployment, although it will put large sums into the pockets of all those who are not directly concerned with the employment of the people.
Let me point out another disadvantage under which industry has laboured under this arrangement. The trades which have been selected in some cases have been selected at the expense of other trades. The case of shipbuilding is very much in this position. There seems to be very little doubt that some of the orders placed on the Clyde and elsewhere, assisted by the credits of the Trade Facilities Act, were ahead of the programmes which would have been in prospect in the ordinary way in the various shipping companies and lines. There may have been some advantage, undoubtedly, given to the shipbuilding industry at that moment, but what has been the effect? The immediate effect was to produce more ships than the traffic of the world could justify—there are far more ships in the world than are necessary at the present time for the carriage of the goods which are available to be carried between country and country. There have been produced, quite artificially and ahead of the natural demands of the world, vessels that are not required. That, naturally, meant a postponement of that prosperity in the shipping trade without which there cannot be the regular flow of orders into the shipyards on which we must depend. It is far more important to get that regular flow of orders going to the shipyards on the North-East Coast of England, to the Clyde and to Belfast, than it is to have a few spurts given here and there, and those
spurts themselves have the direct effect of delaying the orders which would come naturally to the yards. Whatever good may have been done by this artificial means, it is counterbalanced, and more than counterbalanced, by the delay in the orders which would have been given in the ordinary course had the trade been allowed to recover its own equilibrium in its natural way.
The disadvantage of this system is that the Government really cannot perform the ordinary functions which the ebb and flow of trade itself regulates. Any satisfying of the demand ahead of what the world requires is bound to do harm; any selection of individual trades, to the injury of others, while giving employment on the one hand, may take it away on the other, and I was a little surprised to find so good an economist as my right hon. Friend the ex-Financial Secretary to the Treasury suggesting that this scheme had in any way aided employment. He is taking for granted that this scheme has actually produced credit where it did not previously exist. The sum total of credit in this country is fairly well fixed, within limits that are, comparatively speaking, ascertainable. There is nothing under this scheme that has done anything whatever to add to the total amount of credit available for either Government direction or the direction of trade as a whole. If credit is pledged in one direction, it is not available in another. It may have provided employment in one direction; it may have withheld it in another. The sum total of employment remains very much the same, whether you do this or not; the disadvantage about it, from the point of view of the unemployed, is that the unemployed in some parts will foe kept longer out of work, while the unemployed in other parts are receiving a temporary benefit. The prime necessity of our time is to see the whole disturbance and oscillation' set up by the War pass away, and a regular flow of trade once more becoming the effective means of providing us with a remedy for our economic ills. If that be done, if things be allowed to take their course, as they are taking it now, under sound conditions, there is very little doubt that the trade of the world will gradually recover, but the scheme to which we are asked to give an extension to-day, so far from
hastening the return of that happy time, will tend to delay it in many ways.
Let me say, in conclusion, something about the proposal that was made by my right hon. Friend on the Front Opposition Bench. He suggests, as I think quite rightly, that, if the advantage of British credit is to be given to concerns which otherwise would not be able to get their money so cheaply, that is a gift which is handed over to the proprietors of those various concerns, or, as sometimes happens in the case of new concerns, to the promoters rather than to the ultimate proprietors. If that gift is made, the State is at least entitled to say that it should have some return for it. It is not enough to say that as a result of that gift a certain number of men in one trade receive employment—it may be to the detriment of others in another trade. What we are entitled to say is that, having given to this concern credit which may be represented by, perhaps, 1, or 1½, or even 2 per cent. on the capital involved, the State may justly claim a full share in the benefits it has created. I see no answer to that, and I would suggest to the Government, and to those hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who regard this as beneficent legislation, that they should watch carefully its logical development. If it goes on much longer, it will certainly lead, it must inevitably lead, to these concerns being taken over in part or in whole by the State. For my part, I do not believe that that would be a good thing. I believe it would be a bad thing, but it must be the inevitable result of going on permanently with this scheme of presenting to these various concerns 1½ or 2 per cent. on their capital year by year out of the pool of British Government credit.
I see no answer to the argument which has been put from the Front Opposition Bench, and I do not know what the Government are prepared to say on the subject, but I am certain of this, that the sooner they are able to get up and say they are done for good with all subsidies of every kind—whether of the kind that finds its prime example in the case of sugar-beet, or of the kind provided under the Export Credits Scheme, or the kind provided through this Bill—the
better it will be for British industry, and the sooner we shall return to a condition of prosperity.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I have listened with the very greatest interest to the speeches which have been made so far this afternoon, and, in particular, to the last speech. I find myself in a very considerable measure of agreement with the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, although I think there is a very definite reply to the suggestion which was put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). The effect of the guarantee under this Measure is to induce money to go into enterprise where otherwise it would not go at the present time. The guarantee is merely to ensure that you will get the same reward in that enterprise that you would be able to get elsewhere at the present time. The people who, because of this, put their new savings into an industry which has a guarantee, are not any better off than they would be otherwise, but what does happen is that that particular enterprise comes into being where otherwise it would not have come into being.
I want to raise the whole economic question which underlies this and corresponding Bills. All these Measures—whether Trade Facilities, Export Credits, Unemployment Grants, or, in the days before the War, the Right to Work Bill, or, now, the Prevention of Unemployment Bill—have running through them what may be a great truth or a great fallacy. I do not believe any of us know whether it is a great truth or a great fallacy. I remember the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) saying one night, in a few words, perhaps more truth on unemployment than has been said by many others. He said that we all approach this problem with too much party prejudice, the Conservatives thinking solely of Protection, the Labour party thinking solely of Socialism, and the Liberal party regarding it as an act of God, as to which, therefore, nothing could be done. I think the hon. Member will recollect the occasion on which he indulged in these great truths. But, by a Government guarantee under this Measure, do we, in fact, bring into action any new savings, or any credit which would not otherwise be available? Do we, in fact, give employment to one
single, solitary person who would not have got employment if the guarantee had not been given? I do not think anyone can answer with certainty on that point.
It is perfectly obvious that, by means of selecting your guarantees, you can change the direction in which new capital may be invested; you can change the direction of people's purchasing power. By such a change in direction you may create employment in one area where conditions are very bad, and you may gain the advantage for that area by diminishing employment in another area. That may be the case, but I am afraid it is true to say that none of us can speak with certainty on this question. Is it the case that a guarantee under this Bill will, in fact, increase the total amount of credit available? Will an export credit grant to Russia, if it be desired to grant export credits to Russia, have the effect of reducing the amount of credit available for financing trade to other countries? This legislation was introduced, if I remember aright, in 1921. The Coalition Government of that day, face to face with the gravest unemployment situation with which any Government has been faced in modern times in this country, felt it necessary to attempt certain things. I think they were perfectly right in making the attempt, and succeeding Governments have continued that legislation; and each Government, where it has continued that legislation and increased the amount of the guarantees under these Bills, has proclaimed to the country at large that it has provided so much extra for the solution or alleviation of the unemployment problem.
I should very much like to see this whole problem inquired into on entirely new lines. The suggestion that has so far been made with regard to inquiry has been merely that we should inquire into the particular methods adopted, rather than that we should inquire into the fundamental principle involved. It may be, and I think that possibly it is the case, that during periods of acute trade depression there is lying idle so much purchasing power which may be brought into action by a Bill of this kind, and that there is some definite small advantage in the provision of employment from the fact that you have a scheme like this. I think we ought to balance that advantage, if it really exists, by the disadvantages which have been pointed out
by some other Members. It is clearly the case that an inflation of currency or an inflation of credit can stimulate trade activity up to a point. Unfortunately, it is always difficult to stop the inflation, which always leads to a disaster in the end. I am asked by the hon. Member for Bridgeton, why should it? I am afraid it is more a psychological than an economic problem. It is difficult to find—

Mr. MAXTON: Is not the whole problem a psychological problem, and is it not a psychological problem with which we are dealing here?

Mr. WILLIAMS: In part, the whole of our political economy is a branch of psychology, but, on the other hand, there are certain very material questions. While the price that you can obtain for a sack of potatoes is partly a psychological problem, the existence of the potatoes is not psychological, but material. Therefore, I think we must bear in mind both the material aspect and the psychological aspect. There is another psychological aspect of this problem. If, during a time of acute depression, there are large numbers of people in certain areas to whom nothing is offered, I think the chances are that the demoralisation of spirit which those people suffer will be greater than if an attempt is made, even though it be not a very successful attempt, by certain classes of legislation, to divert the available purchasing power partly to them, so as to stimulate some economic activity in their area. It may be the case that the provision of an export credit, or the guarantee of a public issue, leads to some temporary measure of credit inflation, to be replaced afterwards by real goods, and, therefore, balanced; but I am not going to suggest that any of us know for certain whether that will be so. The whole of the few remarks I am making this afternoon are a plea to the Government, because the responsibility lies with them, and not only with them but with all of us, to apply our minds much more exhaustively to studying the fundamental problem underlying unemployment, rather than going on with one palliative or another, or raising one party battle-cry or another. I believe that, by real careful study of some of these problems, we might arrive at economic truths which are hidden from us at the moment, and that by doing
that we should be laying a foundation for the future prevention of some' of the economic crises which have affected us in the past.

Mr. PURCELL: I am afraid the discussion on the financial and economic side of this question will leave me exceedingly cold. What I am concerned about is to what extent has credit been granted and to what extent employment has been secured, in accordance with the views expressed by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The point with me is that if it is a good thing to set up legislation of this type and to use a large amount of State funds for the purpose of assisting industry, the proper thing to do is to carry it a step further and endeavour to see how far trade can be promoted in all parts of the world. I have every sympathy with regard to Russia. I think it is a foolish thing for us to stand aside as we do. I do not think so far there has been a good case made out against developing trade with Russia at a far more extensive rate than is the case at present. In fact, there seems to be some sort of spite or spleen against a great race of people who seem to be attempting to work out their own salvation in their own special way. But apart from that, what I wanted to draw attention to was the fact that we have our friends of the Liberal, Labour and Conservative parties, in this House and in the country, most of them declaring that they are in favour of an expansion of trade with Russia, and yet, singularly enough, we do not seem to get any great distance with it and while we are, as it were, quarrelling as to whether we ought or ought not, what is happening in the world? I see according to the Press, and I observed it while I was in New York, that the New York Press are stating very clearly that the money market, whatever sort of institution or animal that may be, is engaged at present in considering the advisability of granting further loans to Germany, and side by side with that we get the statement that much of this would be used for the purpose of supporting credits for German, or Russian trade.
Singularly enough, on looking over the figures of the last few days, I observe, according to some of these Press reports, that the American-Russian trade has far exceeded the Anglo-Russian trade, and I cannot but think that if the objection
that we have heard frequently from Members of the Government acid others, that the Russians do not pay their debts or are not bona fide traders, or whatever it may be, was a good one, how comes it that this great trading community of the United States can trade with them on such a large scale as they are doing, and indeed can promote loans which will mean assistance to Germany and use the same money for those whom we thought we defeated in the Great War, and whom we would never touch for the future, and whom we regarded as something un touchable, and yet singularly enough in our own country, when a loan was promoted, I see it was over-subscribed by a tremendous sum. I am not concerned with the exact figures, but I am concerned with the fact that the countries that we are assisting through the ordinary exchanges and so on from the financial point of view, by way of loans and so on, are manufacturing for Russia. Czechoslovakia is another case in point. She is sending large batches of workmen to Russia to complete certain undertakings. I have seen them where this work is being undertaken, side by side with the limited amount of work that people like Vickers, the British Thomson-Houston Company, and the English Electric Company are doing. The whole thing seems to me to be such a botch potch and zig-zag affair that, to do justice to ourselves, it would be far better if we could get Members on all sides of the House to go into the matter and see if something cannot be done to piece up this business. After all, it is a matter of securing work for our men. For example, we are told on many sides there is an order waiting for £15,000,000 of work for the electrical industry. I have no means of proving that or of disputing it. You can see the details all set out for the large amount of equipment required for electricity undertakings, for light vessels for the River Volga, a large amount of motor equipment, transport equipment, steel rails, and so on.
It am not going to argue whether it is a bona fide order, correct in all its details. All I can say is that if they make the statement that there is need for the supply of that mass of equipment, in view of the large number of men and women we have unemployed it is the duty
of the House to sit down and calmly consider, regardless of party politics and ordinary orthodoxy, and find out whether that is true, and if it is true how it can be met, at no matter what cost, so far as bringing our people into employment is concerned. That seems to me to be the practical way of handling the problem. I am bound to say if this legislation is intended to promote trade, if you like, to promote employment, if the idea is, as was hinted, to keep certain people in their industries—the boiler makers and ship builders in their industries, the metal workers in theirs, and so on—it seems to me under existing circumstances we must go somewhat further than a mere sort of agreement to back up the financial side of this enterprise.
For example, in Mexico there is a great field for our industry and a great opportunity, certainly for large firms. I understand that whereas in 1917 our proportion of the foreign trade of Mexico was 27 per cent., in the latter end of 1925 it had shrunk to 3 per cent. It seems to me, then, that if it is a good thing to use our standing for the purpose of giving these guarantees we ought to see to what extent we can extend the opportunity to trading throughout the world for the purpose of getting a minimum number of unemployed rather than the large number we have at present. Looking round the cotton mills, and particularly the undertaking with regard to the great irrigation works in Mexico and the improvements so far as the oil wells are concerned, it occurred to me that this was the very place where trade ought to be done, and to be secured as early as possible, because of the tremendous amount of work lying there waiting to be done by men who have been unemployed for three, four, or even five years. We have a large army of the most highly-skilled men the world has ever known, but if ever they got started back at their old jobs it would be difficult for them to get up to their old posts.
Leaving all that out of account, here is a case where there should not be merely the backing, the supporting and guaranteeing of credits, but we ought to find out whether we can extend it so as to bring within its ambit a larger number of men who are available for employment. I would not regard for the moment whether it is a good, bad or indifferent
firm from the capitalist point of view, much as I detest capitalism. What we are all more anxious about is to get our people into employment. It is far better to have them working than to be drawing what is termed the dole, the most insulting phrase ever used to working men. But leave out of account again, we ought to be able, and I think it is the duty of the Government to explore all the avenues they possibly can for the purpose of seeing not only that this backing is given to substantial cases where an in crease of employment for our men would take place, but they ought to look further ahead and see how by the use of this same financial machine we can bring a greater number into employment and create a larger mass of trade abroad. I am satisfied that there is work for us in Mexico.
Notwithstanding whatever may be said to the contrary, we could get back our trade if we made a reasonable and decent attempt. Having said that, I am bound to admit that we ought to have a larger amount of information in connection with the matter. To say that so many millions out of £15,000,000 have been disbursed, or that we have not lost more than so much, or have not lost anything at all, is not sufficient to lay before the House. My view is that you ought to tell us to what extent your guaranteeing credit has made an improvement in the number of unemployed. If that was done we might be able to promote greater interest in this business to some extent. I am not concerned with what has been said with regard to the Tightness or wrongness of the method. Whatever is done, wherever we get the money from, under whatever Act we get it, the principal thing is that we could use all these means for the purpose of securing employment for the great army of men we have unemployed.

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: It was not my intention to take part in this Debate, but I should like to add a few words to what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). I should like to refer to the class of security that is normally demanded where credit facilities are granted. Sufficient care is not always taken, and I doubt very much whether the credit of our country is granted always to the best advantage. Under the present Act, credits are granted without any particular reason,
with the result that some industries derive a very material advantage over other industries. Recently we had a case of credit facilities being guaranteed to a large industry, whereas I have in mind another industry of precisely the same nature who when they found it necessary to raise money had to pay a rate of interest at 8 per cent. I fail to see why one firm should be able to borrow money at, say, 5 per cent., with the guarantee of the Government behind it, whereas another has to pay 8 per cent. for their money. The firm I have in mind had to raise on short term notes an amount of £3,000,000. The difference between 8 per cent. and 5 per cent., at which rate it would have been possible to borrow the money under the Trade Facilities Act, means a difference of £90,000 a year in interest to be paid by that firm which is competing with the other firm which secured credit facilities. The Act works unfairly, and it gives a distinct advantage to one firm, as against another firm who may be interested in precisely the same industry.
The Government when they establish these credits are mortgaging the credit of the country, which means that they are mortgaging the credit of the people. Credit is a commodity which is traded in every day in the same way as any other commodity. If the Government are to continue giving these trade facilities, I suggest that they should make a charge for the credit facilities which they offer. Let me give a practical illustration of what I mean. If a private firm or a private individual is prepared to offer credit to a firm or an individual it is customary for the firm or individual who are providing the credit to make a charge for that credit. If a business firm goes to an individual and asks that individual to guarantee a loan from the bank, it is customary for that individual to charge a commission of ½ or 1 per cent. for guaranteeing the loan, because he is mortgaging his credit. Similarly, I see no reason why the Government, in effecting guarantees under the Trade Facilities Act, should not charge some rate of interest, say, ½ per cent. That may not sound very much, but ½ per cent. on the total amount of guarantees which the Government have already effected under the Trade Facilities Act would amount to not less than £350,000 a year. That
£350,000 could be set aside to build up a fund which could be utilised for the purpose of meeting any losses which they might ultimately have to face in this direction.
Generally speaking, I am against the facilitating of these loans. They are one-sided, they are biassed in favour of a few and they place one firm or individual at a distinct advantage over another. It is not sound finance, and it is unwise in principle. I hope the Government will seriously consider withdrawing the facilities under this Act at the earliest possible opportunity, and meanwhile I hope they will seriously consider the suggestion I have made, that for any further credit which is offered under this Act there shall be charged a small commission on the amount of the credit guaranteed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Government cannot complain of the time spent in debating this subject. It has been extraordinarily interesting to hear tie different points of view put from each party in turn. The principal importance of this Debate depends upon the House itself making up its mind, not remitting to a Committee something on which it cannot make up its mind, but making up its own mind. The question upon which we have to make up our minds in connection with the Trade Facilities Act and the Export Credits scheme, is whether these schemes do in reality increase employment in the least. It is not denied that by either of these schemes you can increase employment in those particular trades or in those particular firms that are assisted. That is no more denied by those of us who oppose these schemes than that Protection involves more employment in certain definite industries. What we fall foul of, is the idea that it means more employment in the sum total.
You are by these schemes directing the investment of capital into certain directions by giving them greater credit. By the setting up, say, of electric lighting in the town of Athens, you are directing more employment into the engineering trades in this country, but you are by directing capital into that particular form of investment depriving other forms of investment and enterprise either in this country or elsewhere of capital which they
might otherwise obtain. Let me, for the sake of argument, say that one of us had £500 to invest: a very hopeful proposition. If we have that sum to invest, we have a choice of investments. We could put the money into a Trade Facility scheme, say, the Benguela railroad. The money would then be assisting in the production of railroad material in this country. If I do not want to do that with this problematical money, and I do not put it into that particular form of investment or the Government does not guarantee the capital if it is invested in that way, perhaps I might buy a new motor car with it.
If I buy a new motor car, am I not providing employment in the motor trade to exactly a similar extent as I might be employing men in the engineering trade in making rail-road material for the west coast of Africa? I am not arguing that it is not more usefully invested in developing the railways in Africa than it would be in carrying me more rapidly between London and my constituency. I am only showing that the same amount of employment is involved, it may be more parasitic employment, but it is employment to exactly the same amount. Suppose, instead of investing the money in a Government guaranteed scheme, or putting it into a motor car, I put it into an extension of the pot factory at Etruria. In that way I should be assisting in finding employment in the building trade and in the machine trade by the extension of the factory. In either case the same employment is involved by the investment of that capital sum.
All that we are doing by these schemes is stimulating the investment of capital in certain directions rather than in other directions. When the right hon. Gentleman tells us, after having listened to all the Debates we have had on this subject, that he believes that this scheme will increase employment in this country, and that it has increased employment in this country, he is either impervious to economic argument or so obstinate as to refuse to listen to argument. That seems to me to be a common method of hon. Members opposite when schemes which they must know in their heart of hearts are thoroughly unsound are put forward, as this one is to-day.
The real humour of the situation is that most of these schemes of
Export Credits, and schemes under the Trade Facilities Act, are to facilitate loans for the investment of money in foreign or colonial countries-We have had big credits given to Poland, Greece and Africa, both East and West Africa, to Finland and elsewhere. These credits have been given in order to facilitate the employment of people in this country in the export trade. Yet the same Government, even the same Member of the Government, the Minister responsible for the Treasury, put an embargo on loans to foreign countries to prevent exactly what they are now proposing, namely, the investment of British capital abroad. That embargo was imposed upon the export trade of this country for the best part of nine months. During that time no money might be loaned to foreign countries or to the Colonies. The Government were absolutely prohibiting what with the other hand they were seeking to encourage, and this is supposed to be a Government of all the talents! The embargo on foreign loans inevitably prevented money being lent abroad, and consequently prevented goods being manufactured in this country and sent abroad. Everybody knows that if we lend £1,000,000 to Poland, sooner or later every penny of that £1,000,000 must leave this country as goods manufactured in this country. We do not export paper money and we do not export gold. In the long run, although the gold balance may vary, that million pounds must leave this country as British manufactured goods. Therefore, by stopping the money in that way being lent abroad they deal a blow at the export trade far more heavy than the benefit conferred upon the export trade by the particular measure now before the House.
The Government, all along, have had two ideas of export trade. They have hampered it by making the widows' pensions a burden upon the export trade and industry, instead of the pensions being raised, according to the means of the community, from everybody in the community. They have hampered them by the restoration of the gold standard by pushing up the value of the pound sterling by 10 per cent., making manufacture dearer, and making it more difficult for us to compete in neutral markets. By placing an embargo upon foreign loans they are putting difficulties in the way of our sending goods abroad. While they are
doing this, apparently in sheer ignorance, they are at the same time bringing forward these Trade Facilities Acts and Export Credits Schemes in order to encourage the very trades they are kicking.
6.0 P.M.
There is one other point in this scheme to which I should like to call the attention of the House. Under the Trade Facilities Act it is stipulated that three-quarters or two-thirds of the money must be spent on goods made in this country. How much longer are we going to put a Clause of that description in an Act of Parliament? Is it not perfectly well known to every economist that whether you have such a Clause in or not every penny of the loan is spent on goods manufactured in this country. It is true they may not go in the first instance to the country which gets the loan. You may make a loan to Athens, but it does not translate itself at once into goods sent to Athens. Some of the goods they buy may be bought in Germany, but it is certainly in the end balanced by goods going from this country abroad. Can hon. Members suggest any other way in which a loan raised in this country can leave this country except as goods? [An HON. MEMBER: "Gold!"] In that case we should soon drain away the gold in this country, and the hon. Member will observe that when gold is drained out of a country the natural result is a rise in the bank rate, which draws the gold back to this country in exchange for our goods. If you have a bank rate depending on your gold reserve, the ultimate effect of any foreign loan must be goods sent from this country. That is one more additional point of economic unsoundness about this legislation. The idea that it means additional employment is utterly false. What it does is to direct into certain channels the investment of money on Government credit, and that merely keeps going certain industries at the expense of other industries, exactly in the same way as a protective tariff does. And when we on this side of the House urge that the employment of Government credit, of public money, in this way should be accompanied by some control over the particular firms which enjoy the benefit of this cheap credit, hon. Members on the other side agree with us that that certainly is a first condition in any
sound schemes. I think the Government might have got much better terms in the way of rate of interest than they have in many of these schemes. Neither the Grecian nor the Polish scheme could have gone through without the assistance of Government credit which they got at five per cent. They would willingly have paid seven per cent. in order to get these schemes. But in any case, whether we make a larger present to these particular firms than necessary we do make a present of some description, and as long as that present is made we maintain that the people who make that gift ought to have a direct voice in the conduct, management and profits of the company.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: I agree with a great deal that has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), but there is one thing he left out in his argument, and that is this, that if money from flotations is going abroad in the way he suggests there is the possibility of the reinvestment by the country who receives the goods of that money in this country. With regard to what he describes as the embargo, I am afraid it was only a voluntary embargo, and, if he bad watched the financial market closer, he would have seen that investments were coming from New York to this country. The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Purcell) referred to the money market, and the difficult details of the money market seemed to flabergast him. It is a most difficult subject undoubtedly, and it is only by years of practice that it can be understood. He mentioned about money going to Mexico, and Russia and elsewhere, but I should like him to realise this, that only a certain amount of money can go abroad. Last year the actual investments in overseas loans was about £88,000,000, and our balance of trade, which he must watch as well if he wants to understand it, was £28,000,000. This is very small for a country like ours. The amount should be closer, and I think the President of the Board of Trade may at some future date alter the amount of our balance of trade for 1925. If you have over-invested abroad, your exchange will go down unless you equalise it by gold or by investments of the foreign countries in your country. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave us a clear outline in
regard to the Trade Facilities Act. He stated that the Treasury had a free hand. When the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) introduced the Trade Facilities Bill in this House I understood him to say that the Treasury did not appear in the picture.

Mr. R. McNEILL: Those are the words which the then Chancellor of the Exchequer used, and which I quoted.

Sir F. WISE: I am sorry I did not hear this quoted. The principal point I want him to consider is in regard to the advisory committee. It is very difficult to criticise an advisory committee, especially when it is made up of men who are experts, but I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to give me the terms of reference to the committee. It is difficult for the House to criticise in a constructional way unless they know the actual terms of reference. Some of the issues undoubtedly should not, in my opinion, have been made. Two years ago when the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) was Financial Secretary to the Treasury I suggested that reports should be handed in to the Treasury every, three or six months in regard to the various companies which received these credits, and the reply I received then—I should like to ask the present Financial Secretary whether these reports do some in—was to this effect:
The actual position is that first of all the auditors are approved by the Treasury "—
We shall all agree with that—
and there may be and is a call for periodical reports from time to time, it may be every six months, in order to point out exactly what the undertaking is doing.
I am sure we all agree that where credit is given reports should be handed in to the Treasury, and I should like to know whether they are handed in regularly. A question was asked this afternoon; unfortunately, I was not present to hear the reply, being on a Committee upstairs, with regard to the Appleton Iron Company, and I noticed in a north-country paper to-day that a resolution has been passed by the Tees Conservancy Commissioners protesting against this credit being granted, because it was increasing the number of plate mills on the northeast coast to the detriment of the trade on the river Tees. I did not hear the
answer given, but it is important when such credits are given that they should be given in the right and proper way.
I hope the Financial Secretary will look into these questions and realise the importance of proper credits being given in the right direction. Another serious question is the effect on Government maturities that will become due in the next three years if the Trade Facilities Act be greatly expanded. I cannot impress upon the Financial Secretary too strongly the necessity for protecting our credit which is limited, indeed very limited, and that these maturities when they become due are exchanged into lower interest-bearing securities with a longer date of redemption. The amount in 1926–27, that is in next year's Budget, is £110,000,000; in 1987–28 £335,000,000, and in 1928–29 £492,000,000. These are vast sums, and they exclude external loans. I feel confident that if this vast sum of nearly £1,000,000,000 could be converted at 1 per cent. less interest, it would be better for the unemployed than anything else we could do. It is a reduction of taxation, and the protection of the taxpayer that we want. Conditions have changed since this Bill became an Act in 1921, but I believe it is dying slowly. I firmly wish it would die faster, and I feel confident it would be better for the nation and the unemployment problem.

Mr. MARDY JONES: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member who has just spoken, and discuss whether the Trade Facilities Act is sound or not. What we want to know is whether the administration of the Act does produce employment; whether it is being wisely administered. I want to deal specifically with one proposal. The Government are asking the House to agree to a guarantee by the Treasury of £2,000,000 to Messrs. Pearson and Dorman Long and Company for the development of the Kent coalfields. I listened very carefully to the Financial Secretary the other day, and also to-day, in the expectation that he would give the House some information why this £2,000,000 should be guaranteed to this large, wealthy and apparently efficient film. He has given us no information. We are treated like a lot of schoolboys; we must not be naughty. A Committee has gone into the details of this claim for a guarantee, and decided
that the money can be wisely spent as it will give employment to British labour; and we are to accept his assurance and ask no questions. If that be the position, there is no use in this House sitting at all; the whole Government of the country can be put into the hands of similar experts to decide for us how we shall raise and spend our money. The Government owe it to the House to give us as full data as possible, so that we may judge whether this £2,000,000 guarantee is sound policy in the national interests. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury assured us that the sole object of these Acts is to give work. I submit that in this case, while they are giving work on the one hand, they are taking it away on the other.
We have been given no reason whatever why the Government should pursue this policy of developing new coalfields in Great Britain at this particular time, when there are over 200,000 skilled miners in the established coalfields of the country who are out of work and unable to get work. The Government have given us no evidence that, if this money is spent for the development of this new and untried and very speculative Kentish coalfield, the extra output of coal from that coalfield will be secured new markets. There is no prospect of an expanding market for British coal anywhere in the world. If the output is to be increased by this development very substantially in the coming year, it can be done only by reducing the output of British coal from existing coalfields. Certainly, all the coalfields in England, in particular those in the Midlands and on the North-east coast, will suffer very seriously, exactly in proportion to the development of the Kent coalfields, because they to-day find a great deal of their market for coal in London. London, with its enormous population and its countless industries of every kind, consumes enormous quantities of coal. That market will be lost to the Midlands and the North of England in so far as Kent will be expected by this development to provide coal in years to come.
It is very difficult to get any information from the Government or from any publication of the Government dealing with this project. We want to know whether it is true that, outside Government circles, experts in the coal industry, and particularly on the geological side
of coal mining, estimate that during the next 20 years, on the lines of this development in which the £2,000,000 guarantee is involved, Kent will increase its output to not less than 10,000,000 tons a year, and possibly to as much as 15,000,000 tons a year. Ten million tons a year is equivalent to giving employment all the year round on the average to 40,000 coal miners, and 15,000,000 tons is equivalent to the employment of 60,000 miners. It is also intended by this development of the Kentish coalfield not only to develop the coal seams which have been discovered, but to develop the large deposits of a fairly good quality of iron ore which is super-imposed above the coal measures. That development of iron-ore mining will also be accompanied by a corresponding development in the building and working of blast furnaces in Kent If these allied developments take place together, the present population of East Kent in the area of the coalfield, now estimated at about 300,000, will certainly be doubled within the next 30 years.
This policy may be a sound policy, and I am not going to quarrel with it before I know more about it from Government information. If, as a result of this development, we can be provided in London and in the South of England with a substantial output of cheap fuel of good quality, and there is to be a utilisation of it on more scientific lines for the generation of power, light and heat, that will undoubtedly be a step in the right direction from a national standpoint But it will not be a step in the right direction if it is left as an isolated development. I submit that at the present juncture of the country and the British coal industry, the Government would be much more wisely advised if they spent this £2,000,000, and even more than £2,000,000, not in helping private enterprise to develop this highly speculative Kentish coalfield, but on very large and very wide scientific experiments in the proper utilisation of the energy which we know exists in every pound of good quality coal. We ought to help the fuel research experiments at Greenwich and the private experiments up and down the country, one of which is in my own Division conducted by Professor Illingworth. All of them have reached a stage where they are at least on the verge of being a commercial success, provided that experi-
ments continue, not merely on the existing small scale, but on a huge scale. £2,000,000 of money spent in this direction during the next five years would produce far better results, even for London and the South-East of England than would this particular experiment m Kent.
If the Government will persist in this Kentish experiment, we are entitled, and especially the 50 odd Members of Parliament who come directly from mining constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales are entitled, to press upon the Government that, in so far as this new coalfield is to be developed in this way, it carries with it the responsibility of mitigating the evil effects of the lessened output of coal in all the older coalfields, which will result from the using of Kent coal in the London and South of England market. Also it is going to affect to some extent, and possibly to a very large extent, the export demand for coal from the coalfields. The Kent coalfield is at least 200 miles nearer our foreign markets in the countries of Europe than are the Midlands and the North and South Wales. If this development takes place, we want to be quite sure that the Government are alive to the counter-problem that will be created. We want to be quite sure that the skilled miners in the older coalfields, many of whom have been in mining generation after generation—grandfather, father, son, and the rest of them, many of them having given their lives and left many dependants as a result of the risk of mining—we want to be quite sure that the Government are prepared to see that the miners affected in the older coalfields are migrated into the new Kentish coalfield and are found adequate employment at living wages.
Then we want to be quite sure that the Kentish coalfield is developed on the right lines with regard to housing and health. I am pleased to learn, as a result of questions and otherwise, that the Ministry of Health is keeping an eye on this necessity, and that 17 local authorities in the area concerned have accepted in principle the excellent recommendations made by Professor Abercrombie with regard to the future town planning of this Kent coalfield. But I regret to inform the Committee that lip sympathy towards town planning in the development of these areas is not enough. As yet there is no compulsory power to see
that town planning is carried out or that adequate housing conditions are provided as a matter of course in the newly constructed cottages in the coalfields. I have the bitter experience of knowing, in my own division in South Wales, that although we have large housing powers vested in the local authorities, and although the Ministry of Health has large powers, many of our so-called up-to-date and progressive colliery companies are not entering into the spirit of the need of having proper housing in the newer districts of the coalfield.
I have in my division the richest colliery company in Great Britain. It is developing two sets of large collieries similar to the Kent coalfield and on the edge of the South Wales coalfield. The company is spending millions of money. I refer to the Powell-Duffryn Colliery Company. It is deliberately putting up houses for the people, not in the best positions from a health and social amenity point of view, but in the positions where it will have to pay the lowest rates on the houses when occupied. At present, at one place, the cottages are within a couple of hundred yards of the new pits. As the coal will be produced at the rate of practically one million tons a year from these pits, those houses will become an abomination to the people who have to suffer in them. In a neighbouring district the same company is putting down another set of large pits. It has built what at the moment appears to be a decent type of village. But the village is far too near the pits—it is within 300 yards of the pits—and because of the massiveness of the machinery that drives our collieries to-day, the people in those cottages—there are a couple of hundred of them—cannot sleep at night because of the vibration caused by the winding machinery shaking the earth for a distance of over half a mile from the pithead.
The time has come, in Kent and elsewhere, when no houses should be built within a mile or two of any set of collieries. They should be built on garden-city lines. While the local authorities of Kent have been committed so far to the principle of town planning, they will find by bitter experience that when they attempt to put the principle into practice all kinds of vested interests will arise to put a stop to proper town-planning developments in that area. Therefore,
we ask that the Government should carry out the pledge of the Prime Minister that we should have peace in our time, and that they will practise the precept in this particular case by insisting that all the interests that are concerned with the development of this Kent coalfield carry out town planning properly, and that garden-city villages are established on proper lines. If the Government do that they will have the goodwill of every one of us.
There is something else to which I wish to draw attention on this point, and that is that the Kentish coalfield is not likely to develop on proper lines, even as a commercial concern, unless something drastic is done in regard to royalties and super-royalties. Already the landlord classes in this new coalfield are able to get a higher royalty for a ton of coal than is paid in any of the established coalfields of the country. Not only are the landlords paid a royalty but the pioneer companies, which did the original boring by means of which the seams were discovered, are getting from Messrs. Pearson and Dorman Long in this particular case 1½d. per ton on every ton of coal that is produced. These collieries, when fully developed, are estimated to produce 1,000,000 tons of coal per year for at least 60 years to come. That means that a pioneer company, which has spent £10,000, £20,000 or, perhaps, £50,000 in putting down one or two bore holes, will get, in 60 years, on that basis alone one-third of £1,000,000 for the expense of about £20,000. When you allow for adequate interest on the money, extended over a period of years, it will be seen that they are going to get a very high return, and that will be charged on to the working expenses and the output of those collieries every year during the period of the lease, whether it be 60 years or 100 years. That means it is going to reduce the capacity of the colliery companies to pay the miners an adequate wage.
We have every reason to believe that the Kentish coalfield, in spite of its good geographical position, close to the London market and the Continental market, will have serious disadvantages in actual working compared with any other coalfield. It is already known that the seams are very deep and that they dip steeply, which means high working
costs. It is also known that the cost of drainage will be heavy and the quality of the coal is very doubtful. Many of the seams, so far, have proved inferior in quality, and the heavy charges for royalties are simply a national scandal at this period in the development of the British coal industry. South Wales coal is admitted to be the finest quality of coal in the world and hitherto it has paid the highest royalty per ton. The average royalty paid by South Wales coal to-day—according to the Mines Department's quarterly return—is 9.17d. per ton, but in Kent the royalties will be 9.76d. per ton, actually higher than the royalties paid for the finest coal in the world.
I submit that, before voting this money, it is our duty as Members of the House, to seek more information from the Government than they have given us so far. We want assurances along the lines which other hon. Members have indicated already. If the Government are anxious for a settlement of the coming mining crisis on right lines, here is a golden opportunity to prove the sincerity of their attitude. This Kent coalfield has been developed, not by the capitalists, but by the scientists. The scientists discovered this coalfield in spite of the sneers of the capitalists two generations ago. It is a great triumph for mining science that the coalfield has been discovered. In 1846, De la Beche suggested there was coal there, and, in 1855, Goodwin Austen read a paper before the Geological Society giving data to show that coal was there, and ever since, we have had experiments in boring. I admit the boring company ought to be paid their expenses and reasonable interest, but nothing more. Under the terms of this agreement with Messrs. Pearson and Dorman Long and Company, the public and taxpayers of this country are going to be fleeced, and I think the Government ought to take over this coalfield themselves and run it as an experiment.

Mr. SANDEMAN: I think the former Financial Secretary to the Treasury made a perfectly good case when he argued that if the nation is going to use this money to help in financing trade, the nation has a perfect right to say, "We ought to have a share in it." That
is the reason why I dislike Trades Facilities Acts and all kindred Acts, very heartily. I have tried to get trade facilities in the past myself and I could not succeed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is that the reason?"] No, that is not the reason, and it is just because such suggestions can be made that I think there is a great deal to be said against trade facilities. I urge upon the Government to inquire into all these Trade Facilities Acts and similar Measures; I think the sooner they are brought to an end the better, because in my view they are purely Socialistic. We have heard ad nauseam about the question of trade with Russia. I traded with Russia not so very long ago, but I got cash before delivery and that is the proper way in which to do trade with Russia. A trader should be sure of his money and before shipping his goods the first thing necessary is to have the money to pay his employés. He is naturally going to send his goods to the market where he is surest of getting his money, unless he can get somebody else to take the risk.
I ask, is it fair to get the Government to take these risks? Personally I do not think it is. I do not care whether it is for the herring industry or any other industry. I do not think the taxpayers of the country should be called upon to undertake any risk in such matters. Besides, the question arises whether these schemes are creating any real credit at all. I have grave doubts on that point. The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Purcell) spoke of increasing these credits with the idea of helping to solve unemployment. If he will use his influence with the left wing of the trade union movement, to bring about industrial peace I am confident it will do more good than the voting of all the industrial credits and trade facilities that could possibly be devised. What we want is a better understanding and trade union readers with whom capital can come to some arrangement, knowing that the agreements made will be carried out. Thus, capital will get a little confidence with which to go forward. It is the want of confidence on both sides which is causing a great deal of unemployment, and I am certain if the lines I have indicated were followed it would do much to settle the unemployment question.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I am not going into the general question, but I wish to follow the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Mardy Jones) who dealt with the coal trade, and I want some information about this amazing sum of £650,000 which is being given to the Appleton Iron Company for the purchase and installation of additional plant and machinery. I take it that will be a loan to the steel trade. I do not know whether members of the Government or the members of the Advisory Committee, know the position of the steel trade in the country to-day. If you go down to the Blaenavon and the Ebbw Valley district you will find some of the best machinery in the country standing absolutely idle. In Blaenavon there are 2,000 men who have only done about three months' work during the last two years. If you go to Cwmbran you will find Guest, Keen, Nettlefold and Company's rolling plant standing idle and 600 men out of work for the last six months. Go down to Port Albert where there is the finest plate mill in the whole country and you find the same condition of affairs. There may be some plate mills in Scotland and the North of England, but for output and up-to-date machinery you will find none to excel Port Albert, and this is a works connected with the Prime Minister himself. Here you have a plant that has been idle for five months and there are men walking the streets now, not because there is no capital in the Baldwin Company, not because they are not skilled men, but because there is no demand for the goods which they produce. If that is the case the districts I have mentioned—

Mr. WALLHEAD: And in Dowlais.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Yes, and in Dowlais also, if you have men walking the streets, if you find the same condition of things in Middlesbrough in the North of England and in Motherwell in Scotland, then why should the Government propose to expend this money in this way. I have 45,000 men of my trade walking the streets throughout the country, yet the Government are going to loan £650,000 to the Appleton Iron Company for the erection of new plant and machinery. Who advised the Government to give the loan of this money? I think I am entitled to know. When all the works I have mentioned are standing idle, why should £650,000 of the taxpayers' money be put
into the erection of new works. When I have had an answer I will have several other questions to raise in the Committee stage. I am connected with one of the most important trades in the country, namely the steel trade, and before the Government followed the advice of the Advisory Committee to loan this money our officials ought to have been consulted on the matter.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): It may be convenient if I attempt briefly at this stage to deal with some of the points which have been raised in the Debate. There are questions of detail, which I agree are more conveniently dealt with in Committee, but questions of principle have also been raised in the course of a very interesting and instructive discussion. The right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), who opened the Debate, delivered a characteristically lucid speech and criticised this Bill on the ground that we had not been bold enough. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) criticised us because we were too bold. The criticisms which have been made against this Bill—and they followed the criticisms made on previous occasions—have been directed either to encouraging us to greater activities or to encouraging us to bury these Measures more rapidly. Each set of speeches is applauded. It shows that it is a difficult position, and probably the very fact that we are subjected to that two-fold kind of criticism shows that we are taking the least dangerous, though perhaps not the most couragous path.
The right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh approached this Bill from the point of view of one who wants to make the use of Government credit a permanent and a growing feature in industrial development in this country, and if you start from that point of view, you certainly envisage an entirely different conception of what you ought to do for British industry from that which we, on this side, could accept. The right hon. Gentleman wants a large use of Government credit; I want the smallest possible use of Government credit in industry. Here I agree with my hon. Friend that unless you mean that the
whole of industry should in future be carried on on Government credit, and that the Government should practically monopolise all credit and apply it either for Governmental services or industrial purposes, it is true, I think, that the field of Government credit and the supply of Government credit is limited, and that you have got to be very careful how you use it, moreover, if you use Government credit prodigally, you are going to make it a less valuable article than it is, and you will find that you raise the rates at which the Government are able to borrow—and that is going to be a very serious thing, not only for the taxpayer and for the financial position of this country, but for industry as well.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the State ought to have a share in any business which it subsidises or guarantees. I think there are two answers to that contention. The first is that if Government assistance is going to imply Government control, there are many firms who would decline to take Government assistance on those terms. The right hon. Gentleman is really up against the two alternative conceptions of which I have already spoken. Our conception of what we are trying to do under Trade Facilities or under Export Credits is to use the minimum amount of Government interference, but to give, where it is absolutely necessary, just the amount of help that is going to get the wheels of industry turning, and to withdraw it as quickly as possible. The right hon. Gentleman's conception is different. He wants to continue and increase, as I understand it, the Government intervention, so that these Measures like Trade Facilities or Export Credits or the Sugar Beet Bounty may become avenues down which he may march to the complete Socialisation of British industry. That is for him a legitimate, and possibly a logical, ambition, but it is not one which I propose to help him attain, and if I felt that I was on the horns of a dilemma, and that the Government had to accept a completely logical position, I would much rather follow the right hon. Member for West Swansea and say that the quicker we withdraw from action of this kind the better. But I believe that we can and at this moment ought to pursue the middle course and for a very temporary period continue this Bill.
The right hon. Member for West Swansea raised the question of guarantees to shipowners for the building of ships. That is a matter upon which, so far as I can gather, shipowners and shipbuilders are never likely to agree. In all cases where guarantees have been given, not only was the Committee satisfied that the undertakings were financially sound in themselves, but, of course, it was the shipowners who came forward to ask for the guarantees. In regard to the case he quoted, I think he knows that the instructions laid down by the Treasury for the Trade Facilities Committee when subjected to guarantees for the building of ships for a foreign firm are these, that no guarantee should be given unless the Committee is satisfied that the ship is going to be built in any case, and that the difference that a guarantee would make would be that with the guarantee the ship would be built here, and that without the guarantee the ship would be built outside. I think that is a fair working rule, though there may be difficulties in applying it, I admit. The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Purcell) said that the test we ought to apply in ascertaining the value of this Bill was: How far have Trade Facilities or Exports Credits in the past represented employment? While it may be difficult to say whether none of the employment which has arisen under the operation of these Acts would have been found but for their assistance, this certainly is true, that all the credit given, whether under Export Credits or under Trade Facilities, has gone to the financing of new works of one kind or another, that every single guarantee has represented new work, and that none of it has been given for carrying stock or for working capital.
The hon. Member for Darwen (Sir F. Sanderson) suggested that a commission ought to be charged in the case of the Trade Facilities as in the case of Export Credits. That was considered on more than one occasion, I know, in the Treasury, but the practical difficulties were found to be too great. I do not think the hon. Member suggested it as an indemnity or as an assurance against loss—I do not anticipate that the risk of loss is going to be great—but as a deterrent, to prevent firms from applying for guarantees, an argument which is ingenious and disingenuous at the same
time. What he really means is that he does not want Trade Facilities Guarantees at all, but if he cannot have that, he says: "Let us make it as difficult as possible." That is not a reasonable line to take up. It is one thing to say that this Bill is wrong in principle and that we ought not to have it, but what I am sure is unreasonable and impossible to do is to say: "Let us pass this Bill and have guarantees, but let us make them so difficult and expensive that nobody will take advantage of them." That, I think, is not an attitude which would commend itself to the House.
There were various criticisms made as to the different guarantees which have been given. Of course, it is always possible to criticise, and I admit that one of the difficulties of operating, not so much the Export Credits as Trade Facilities, is that you may be encouraging one firm apparently to the detriment of another. That is a possibility, but, of course, that happens equally where any firm with new developments in hand goes on the market for new money, and what really their criticism amounts to is that you ought not to have a Trade Facilities Act at all. That criticism I can understand, but on the other hand, the criticism of particular transactions has been advanced by hon. Members who are very keen on having a Trade Facilities Act. If you are to have that Act—and it has undoubtedly been a help in giving employment—then, I think, you must give your guarantees to the soundest, the most up-to-date, the most efficient enterprises.

Mr. WALLHEAD: The point for the House, I think, is this: Could the firm to which my figures referred, in the present state of the metal trade of this country, without the Government giving them the money, raise it in the open market at all?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would not like to answer that question for certain. I do not know.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Baldwin's and Guest, Keen, and Nettlefolds could.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Griffiths) has answered the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead). I think very likely a firm could have raised the money, but, of course, it would have to raise it at a
higher rate of interest, I agree. But if you are to give these guarantees at all, surely you must give them to the most efficient firms. It is quite true, if you take the case of steel, that you have plants which are either idle or only partly working. On the other hand, the criticism constantly advanced as regards the steel trade is this: Concentrate on the most up-to-date plants, get your plants as up-to-date as possible, and then you will be more able to compete as against your foreign competitors. A case comes forward where a firm which has had a new works partly constructed, and partly, I think, at the suggestion of the Government during the War, says: "We apply for a guarantee." As a result, they satisfy the Committee, and we believe that they will have as up-to-date a plant as they can get. If this Act is in operation at all, I do not think it would have been reasonable for the Government to say: "We intend to interfere with the discretion of the Committee, and we are going to refuse a guarantee in such a case." It seems to me that you must give your support to those cases which are found financially sound, which are found to lead to an increase in employment, and which are of sound capital value.
7.0 P.M.
I may say in that connection that there is no discrimination against the small firms. The Committee are just as ready to entertain the applications of small firms which put up a sound proposition as of large firms, and I daresay my right hon. Friend will remember that a few months ago—some six or nine months ago—the Treasury and the Trade Facilities Committee issued a notice to firms, drawing their attention to the fact that it was open to them, whether they were large or small firms, to put forward proposals to the Trade Facilities Committee for guarantees for the replacement or the renewal of plants. That could be taken advantage of by the small firms just as well as by the large firms. There are various other points which hon. Members said they would like to have the opportunity of discussing on the Committee stage, but those are details which I think are appropriate to the Committee stage. There remain also the other stages, and I now ask, after the full Debate that we have had to-night and on the Financial Resolution, that the House should allow us to get this Bill.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer as to policy. Is the policy in this case to develop a new coalfield which is bound to put men out of work in the old coalfield?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE LISTER: I really do not think that it would be in Order, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman should ask me to undertake a discussion of that magnitude on the Second Reading of this Bill. There will be an opportunity again to have it discussed, and to discuss the whole future of the coal industry.

Mr. SPENCER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that the Nottingham and Yorkshire districts will get the same treatment as that meted out to Kent?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is open to any company to apply to the Treasury under the Trade Facilities Act.

Sir F. WISE: May I ask whether the Treasury receive reports from the various companies that receive credits?

Mr. MAXTON: I have listened each day to the Debates on this and allied subjects with a greater and greater feeling of absurdness. I have never seen a Bill brought before this House in the three or four years that I have been here that has been so absolutely friendless as the Bill now before the House. I am inclined to agree that it does not deserve any friends if the biggest impression it would make on the problem of unemployment is to leave the figures of unemployed men and women standing still at about a million and a quarter where they have been for the last two years. What is more distressing than the figures is the absolute helplessness, hopelessness and lack of any guiding line shown by right hon. Gentlemen who one after the other voice the Government's policy on these matters. Here we have a White Paper showing us a long list of grants that have been made undirected, unco-ordinated towards any national purposes, but, as various speakers have brought out, all seemingly dependent only on the consideration of what private companies know the ropes sufficiently well or have the necessary influence to get their particular scheme put through the Advisory Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Measure may impress some
people that this Advisory Committee is absolutely out-with the range of all human influence and that it sits like a cherub away up aloft where no earthly thing ever touches it, but I, personally, do not believe that we have a transaction like that referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea (Mr. Runciman). We have sugar-beet companies drawing a subsidy which is going to more than compensate them for any capital they invest and, in addition to getting that subsidy, they are able by some device I do not know of, by some machinery which is not inside, but which may be hovering round about the fringes of the Act, to get a sure guarantee of almost £500,000 behind their capital and behind their interest on that capital. It seems to me that the whole operation of the Act savours very strongly of Tamany, and, if this is the best that can be done, if the results for the unemployed people are so very slight, then I, for one, would join the murder party that is out to lynch this particular bit of legislation.
I believe very much better results can be achieved. This was supported to-day by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) I know it is always pleasant to be quoted by someone else in this House. Even if you are quoted unfairly, still it shows people are taking some little notice of you. Each political party, in turn, has failed to solve this problem of unemployment, and each, in turn, falls back on its own particular fundamental theory of State organisation. The Tories fall back upon Protection, and say there is no cure for unemployment till we get Protection. The Labour party says there is no cure for unemployment till we get Socialism. The Liberal party's attitude is "God help us, because there is no help elsewhere." While that has been the attitude of the political parties in turn, it is not the right and proper attitude for this House to adopt. We hear remarks made here about the inefficiency of the working man or about the inefficiency of members of the capitalist classes or about this section or the next section. There is no more evidence of inefficiency in any section of the community than has been displayed in this House by the Governments who have occupied that Front Bench; than is displayed by the standing steady example of 1,250,000 unemployed people, and we who are supposed to solve it, instead of
finding a solution, have absolutely failed to make the faintest impression on the number. There have been seasonal variations and, whenever the figures were up, we shouted "Hurrah!" When they were down the Government shouted "Hurrah, we did that!" But the fluctuations have gone steadily backwards and forwards along one steady line. Some definite act of statesmanship, some conscientiously directed effort has got to be made if we are to get away from this dull dead load of unemployment.
I have listened with profound interest, and I have no doubt some instruction and enlightenment, to the various persons who have told us just exactly what were the economic laws governing the situation. I understood that the best of the modern economists had quite made up their minds that there are no such things as economic laws nowadays and that the strongest thing we could say was that there were certain economic tendencies. I am still in doubt as to whether credit is a fixed quantity or an expandable quantity. I am certain that the credit of a nation which has 1,250,000 people standing idle and without purchasing power is a lower credit than that of a nation which has all its men and women employed with wages which they can spend week by week. There are great financiers in this House I have been told. As one cannot tell from outward appearances which are the great financiers and which are the less great and which are the completely ignorant, I am asking one of them to volunteer and tell me why it is that the money can circulate all round the place at various rates, and yet we cannot give to the unemployed men and women the purchasing power that will make effective buyers in the national market and effective stimulators of the national trade.
I cannot understand that any credit has been consumed. If 1,250,000 people who have only on an average £1 a week to spend have £4 to spend as employed people, there is going to be £5,000,000 of purchasing power in the hands of the people. It is only going to be in the hands of these 1,250,000 workers for something like two days. It will come out of the bank on the Saturday morning, and at least 75 per cent. of it will be back in the bank on Tuesday or Wednesday. I know a town in Ayrshire where men used
to write their names on the back of their notes, and have a gamble as to when they would get their own notes back again. If they did not get their own, then they got the pound that the fellow next to them had the week before. Where is this disaster coming to the national credit by a working man and his wife being allowed to have the loan of £4 between Saturday evening and Wednesday afternoon? The banks have only let it out for a very short period, and it is back in their clutches once again. I may be all wrong. I am not suggesting that I was going to teach the House anything, but to make an appeal for somebody in the House who does know—and from the certainty with which statements are made some of them seem to know—to tell us how credit operates and how purchasing power operates. Perhaps they will on some occasion either publicly for the benefit of the whole House, or privately for my own personal benefit, enlighten me on this particular matter.
Do not let me, Mr. Speaker, put you to the painful necessity of rising to your feet, because while this might be apparently considerably away from the Second Reading of the Trade Facilities Bill I was just coming to the point. I would connect the argument with the points I want to drive home particularly on the Bill. I have raised those things to show that, quite obviously, there are a whole lot of people here who are entrusted by the country in the operation of the financing of various towns who are held responsible by the people for stimulating, encouraging, and developing national trade who are quite ignorant of the big economic laws underlying, if there be such things as economic laws underlying. And in those circumstances the duty of this house is not to sit down with folded hands, but to do what any other earnest worker desires to do where he is not quite sure where he is going to start experiments, to make trials. The one thing that ends nowhere is to sit doing absolutely nothing. I am not suggesting that the right hon. Gentlemen sitting on that bench. should adopt Socialist methods. I do not think they were elected to adopt Socialist methods, and I do not expect them to break their pledges that they gave to the electors to that extreme extent. I know they will break most of their pledges. A wholesale breakage like that would, I think, not be confined in those very wide limits
of toleration which politicians allow themselves, if they do not allow them to other people. On the other hand, I do not think that national action is barred out to a Conservative Government to the extent that it is barred out to the one or two right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway who are still individualists.
It is the duty of the present Tory Government to use every power they legitimately can use for the development of unused resources in this country and throughout the Empire, and particularly to make full use of the million and a quarter people that they have not been using just now. In my view all the boasting about special love of Empire that is not shared, as they suggest, by hon. Members on these benches, is all so much humbug—utter humbug, unless some definite organised attempt is made under this Bill to develop the undeveloped parts of the Empire. I listened to an hon. Member below the Gangway on this side last year going over a whole list of capital outlets for development in Calcutta, Bombay, and various parts of India that would have stimulated our iron and steel and shipbuilding industries in this country. I have listened to schemes of others to make developments in British East Africa and Nigeria, and I have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee making suggestions for the development of agriculture by providing the peasant worker with some new, simple, mechanical device. Each one of these schemes would not merely give work to the people of this country, but tend to develop the purchasing power of the people resident in various parts of the Empire, and there is absolutely no power for the Government to say, "Yes, we are going to do some of these things." The Trade Facilities Bill is the only weapon they have, and they have got to wait until some private capitalist comes along to the British Empire and says, "Look here. We see a profit in it, and are prepared to develop the Empire." That is not Imperialism, but petty capitalism of the worst type.
What we want to do is to build up a great Empire that shall house and develop a free people, a people that shall be economically, socially and politically free. That is an object we on these benches can share with any hon. Member
in this House. Our only objection is that it is too limited. We do not want merely an Empire of free people united like that, but a world of free people united. An Empire which is merely going to be a place where certain individuals, British capitalists, can grind down poor people to an even lower level than they are ground down in this country makes no appeal whatever to us, and I put it to this Government that they have got an opportunity under this Trade Facilities Bill to go out really for the full development of the Empire outside this country. They have an opportunity for developing the waste places, the undeveloped places in our own country, and, above all, the opportunity of giving to our people here and in other parts of the Empire an opportunity of a decent standard of life. Yet they have sat callously toy, or come inside this House day after day and poured cold water on any bit of enthusiasm expressed by anyone. If any suggestion comes from this side they pooh-pooh it, and show how absolutely impossible it is. They say they have got to pursue this line cautiously, and give long consideration to it before they can do anything, because they are afraid of what they might meet on their tramp forward.
But they are not the least bit afraid or ashamed of the horrible state of affairs existing in this country to-day, where men and women, and the children dependent upon them, are being deteriorated in body and soul, are having their hearts broken, are being deprived of the joy and the hope of life, and Cabinet Ministers day after day, week after week, make no suggestion that is going to bring any hope to anybody. I am going to support the Second Heading of this Bill, and in the Committee stage I hope to move an Amendment that will give not merely the power but the duty to see that these great public schemes shall be definitely co-ordinated and directed to a definite national end, that we shall not be dependent upon the individual greeds of a loosely connected group of individuals, that the nation as a nation will definitely use this legislation to initiate the various schemes that can be initiated in various parts of the Empire, and that the Government directly shall promote and directly shall see the job put through to a satisfactory
conclusion. I hope before the Committee stage is reached the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman will consider whether it is not their duty that benches.

Mr. R. McNEILL: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 239 Noes, 124.

Division No. 58.]
AYES.
[7.24 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Lord, Walter Greaves-


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lougher, L.


Albery, Irving James
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool. W. Derby)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Lumley, L. R.


Applin, Colonel R V. K.
Fermoy, Lord
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Atholl, Duchess of
Ford, Sir P. J.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Forrest, W.
Macintyre, I.


Balniel, Lord
Foster, Sir Harry S.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Macqulsten, F. A.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Malone, Major P. B.


Berry, Sir George
Ganzoni, Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Bethel, A.
Gates, Percy
Margesson, Captain D.


Betterton, Henry B.
Gee, Captain R.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Meller, R. J.


Blundell, F. N.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Merrlman, F. B.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Grace, John
Meyer, Sir Frank.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grant, J. A.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Brass, Captain W.
Gretton, Colonel John
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Grotrian, H. Brent
Murchlson, C. K.


Briggs, J. Harold
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Neville, R. J.


Briscoe, Richard George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Nield, Rt. Hon. sir Herbert


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hammersley, S. S.
Nuttall, Ellis


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hanbury, C.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hartington, Marquess of
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Burman, J. B.
Haslam, Henry C.
Phllipson, Mabel


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hawke. John Anthony
Price, Major C. W. M.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Radford, E. A.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Raine, W.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ramsden, E.


Campbell, E. T.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Cassels, J. D.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Remer, J. R.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Unly.)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Salmon, Major I.


Chapman, Sir S.
Homan, C. W. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Christle, J. A.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Clarry, Reginald George
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sandon, Lord


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whlteh'n)
Savery, S. S.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Cope, Major William
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Couper, J. B.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Ccurthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Skelton, A. N.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jacob, A. E.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jephcott, A. R.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Smithers, Waldron


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Eden, Captain Anthony
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Edmondson, Malor A. J.
Lamb, J. Q.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stuart, Crlchton-, Lord C.


Elveden, Viscount
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


England, Colonel A.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Sykes, Major-Gen.' Sir Frederick H.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Looker, Herbert William
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Templeton, W. P.
Watts, Dr. T.
Withers, John James


Them, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wells, S. R.
Womersley, W. J.


Tinne, J. A.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Waddington, R.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Wallace, Captain D. E.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)



Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Major Sir Harry Barnston and Mr. F. C. Thomson.


Warrender, Sir Victor
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George



Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wise, Sir Fredric



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, George D.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harris, Percy A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, Walter
Hayday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barr, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Briant, Frank
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromfield, William
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Sllvertown)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Taylor, R. A.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)


Clowes, S.
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thurtle, E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kenyon, Barnet
Tinker, John Joseph


Compton, Joseph
Kirkwood, D.
Townend, A. E.


Connolly, M.
Lawson, John James
Varley, Frank B.


Cove, W. G.
Lindley, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lowth, T.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lunn, William
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Day, Colonel Harry
Mackinder, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col D. (Rhondda)


Dennison, R.
MacLaren, Andrew
Webb, Rt. Hon Sidney


Duncan, C.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow. Govan)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Westwood, J.


Fenby, T. D.
March, S.
Whiteley, W.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maxton, James
Wiggins, William Martin


Gibbins, Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gillett, George M.
Morris, R. H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Gosling, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Atterchffe)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenall, T.
Owen, Major G.
Windsor, Waiter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
Wright, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Potts, John S.



Groves, T.
Purcell, A. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.Warne.


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Scrymgeour, E.



Eighth Resolution read a Second time.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. McNEILL: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is one of those annual Bills, unexciting, but nevertheless useful. It provides the machinery by which the
Public Works Loan Commissioners lend money to local authorities. The amount which is included in this annual Bill varies more or less from time to time. The present Bill we are asking the House to give a Second Reading to contains the figure of £35,000,000. The advances are not restricted by statute to local authorities, but the advances to local authorities are a most important part of the procedure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), when this Bill was before the House last year made a criticism, I find, that the facilities of the Measure were too much given to the larger and wealthier local authorities, that these facilities were not given
as much as desirable to the smaller and poorer local authorities. I do not think that that criticism is on the whole justified. Some discrimination has to be used because there has to be conservation of credit, and not indiscriminate granting of loans. In this discrimination the rule which has been applied, not rigidly, but laid down in regard to these loans ever since 1908—I think that is the date—has been that they should be restricted to those local authorities whose rateable value did not exceed £200,000 in England and £250,000 in Scotland, where there is a different valuation system. Therefore, the scheme broadly requires that loans, so far as possible, shall be restricted to local authorities which could not otherwise finance themselves, because their rates do not offer a sufficiently large security in the market.
There is one other exception in the scheme, and that is that, without regard to the rateable value, it is open to the Commissioners to make advances to the local authorities up to the value of one-half of the gross proceeds received from War Savings Certificates in their area during the preceding year. In 1922 a Committee, presided over by the late Mr. E. S. Montagu, recommended that this same assistance should be given in The case of county councils, but the difficulty of putting that into force is that there may be two areas which overlap and come under two rating authorities, so that there might be two distinct loans depending on the same Savings Certificates.
It has, however, been arranged that assistance, so far as possible, should be extended in the direction indicated, and the county councils may borrow from the local loans fund the balance not borrowed in the previous year by other authorities within the county council area. At the present time the loans are required mostly for housing, although that is not by any means their sole destination. Part of the loans are used for agricultural credits, and other minor objects. Speaking broadly, however, the loans are for the purposes of housing, and they are necessary and are employed because of the enormous growth in the requirements for housing during the period since the War. The fund is the chief source by which the local authorities who are building finance their housing schemes. I do not think there is any more to add, and
I hope, without undue delay, the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: There is one passage in the speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to which I would like to refer. It is quite true that a Committee presided over by the late Mr. E. S. Montagu did examine the question and recommended that 50 per cent. of the proceeds of the sale of War Savings Certificates should be allocated by the Treasury to Housing Schemes in the different localities. If I remember the result of our deliberations it was that the grants generally and the allocar-tions should be continued, while as regards the sum over and above what was required for the satisfaction of the needs of the district, the Treasury was to have the free use of it. But I do not, however, press that point unduly to-night, because we can go into that in greater detail in the Committee stage.
The other point is that last year there was some criticism of this Act, as we all know, to the effect that the grants under then existing conditions were not being used to the same extent as they might be for the assistance of the local authorities in rather difficult circumstances. As the rules are now drawn, the larger local authorities, of course, are excluded, because they are over the valuation limit, and in any case they can borrow more cheaply in the open market. But very small local authorities come to be excluded from the difficulty of putting up the necessary security for a loan under the Public Works Loans Act. Our criticism was to this effect: that authorities who tender to be helped were the people in the intermediate position, who often suffered the same hardship as the smaller people, with whose difficulties both the Financial Secretary and the Minister of Health are at the present time familiar. I want to know whether we cannot with perfect safety amend the procedure under this legislation to provide a larger assistance to these smaller rural authorities, and give them the benefit of these loans on the easiest possible terms. After all, there is the security of the local rates behind; and I think the House will generally agree that these authorities are not likely to get into default. They are the kind of people who in many cases ought to be assisted.
However, this also we might deal with in the Committee stage, and I give notice to the Financial Secretary, because I have no doubt between now and the Committee stage he may be able to get some specific information for us on the point.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not desire to make this an exciting Debate in response to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman who does not wish to excite us on this occasion, because there is a certain amount of business to be got through to-night. There are one or two points, however, to which I should like to refer. This is practically another version of the Trade Facilities Bill applied for the benefit of local authorities. In regard to the city one of whose divisions I have the honour to represent, may I say that we think we have not been too well treated in regard to assistance urgently required for public work. I am going really to touch upon recent history for a moment or two. We have had two deputations wait upon the Government for the purpose of asking assistance for the construction of a tunnel under the Humber. It is quite an urgent matter, as urgent as others. In fact, the Humber is more difficult to navigate on the surface than is the Mersey. The tides are very high, and there are many accidents to shipping. There is need for communication between Hull on the northern bank of the Humber and New Holland on the south, and the very rich County of Lincoln, with the iron-fields of Scunthorpe ready for development. The Lincolnshire side of the river is rather shallow, only ferry boats of a very small size can be used, and when it comes to a matter of getting motor cars across and road transport generally—

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is making a speech on the Trade Facilities Bill. This is the Public Works Loans Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I appreciate that point, Mr. Speaker. I was only referring to such schemes as have already been discussed. I do not want to go into the details of the scheme, except to say that we have not been received very sympathetically by the Government, who have put all kinds of difficulties in the way. For example, they have said the railway company must
put the work in hand; we have not been encouraged to do it ourselves, on the ground that it is not a commercial proposition, that there is no immediate cash interest to be made out of this great work of public utility. But that is not the point. The point is that it is one of the needs of the locality, and also one of the needs of the whole country. Why cannot the use of part of this sum of £35,000,000 for a project such as this be considered. The right hon. Gentleman knows all about it, because we have been to the Treasury, and it has been raised on the Floor of the House and been the subject of correspondence, and leading citizens have come from Hull more than once to see the authorities here, but we have not go further forward. What would be our chances under this Bill?
Further, may I ask how the calculation is made that the sum required will be £35,000,000? Is that figure guess work, or do the Government go on any basis of calculation? Are they thinking of the number of applications for loans they have in the Treasury, or what is the basis? I think we are entitled to be told that, and also what happens if the sum of £35,000,000 be not sufficient. In that case a Supplementary Estimate is presented, I suppose; and if all the money is not spent the balance goes to the Sinking Fund. If I might have a word on these two points from the right hon. Gentleman, or whoever will reply for the Government, I do not wish to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, which, as far as I know, is as excellent a Measure as the right hon. Gentleman discovered it to be.

SUPPLY.

REPORT [16TH FEBRUARY].

Resolutions reported,

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1925–26.

CLASS II.

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £303,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will
come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, including a Subsidy on Sugar and Molasses manufactured from Beet grown in Great Britain, Expenses under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, Loans to Agricultural Co-operative Societies, Grants for Agricultural Education and Research, Grants for Eradication of Tuberculosis in Cattle, Grants for Land Drainage, a Grant-in-Aid of the Small Holdings Account, and certain other Grants-in-Aid; and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew."

2."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade, and Subordinate Departments, including certain Services arising out of the War."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: When this Estimate was before the Committee a long Debate arose on the question whether the Vote for the sugar-beet subsidy ought to be passed without an assurance from the Minister that he recognised the obligation to associate the subsidy with the question of agricultural wages. It was argued by myself and others that it was incumbent on the Minister to use all his powers in order to bring to the labourers, as well as to the farmers, the advantages of that subsidy. I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to develop that point, because at the time the Minister was diverted from his argument, and since then one or two new considerations have arisen, and notably, there have been conferences of labourers in the lowest-paid counties during the last few days, and there is a possibility that there may be widespread agricultural strikes. Ought the Vote to be passed unless satisfaction is given to the House that the implied promise that the sugar-beet subsidy would be of benefit to the workers as well as to the farmers is shown to have been fulfilled? One of the main arguments in support of the policy was that it would benefit wages. No one denies that the sugar-beet policy has been of general benefit in the arable areas. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has publicly stated that it is not only a partial
benefit but a general benefit. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if the benefit is general it is fair to argue that it ought to be reflected in the wages fixed in the arable areas. We are faced with the fact that in certain counties the wages—

Mr. SPEAKER: I have been examining the Estimate. It must be remembered that this is a Supplementary Estimate. As far as I can see, there is no item in it on which this argument could be founded. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman must wait for the Vote on Account, or for the Vote which contains the Minister's salary, in order to raise his point.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I wish to say a word or two on the same part of the Estimate, although I expect the Minister will think he has heard a great deal from me already on that subject. As I said to him while this matter was in Committee, those of us who are specially concerned with the consumers' point of view will never let this matter alone until we think we have sufficiently protected them as well as the general taxpayer. I want to reply to a point made by the Minister in the Debate when the Vote was in Committee. He said there was no real point in my argument that the giving of this subsidy—we are voting a further sum to-night—would create a vested interest which would require the Government to maintain a tax upon sugar. I have looked at his speech as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and find he said:
May I point out that the Government are entirely free to reduce the Sugar Tax right down to the stabilised preference, which is a very small figure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1926; col. 1813, Vol. 191.]
I am quite well aware that on the basis of the scheme, which was worked out during the Labour administration of 1924, instead of giving the whole of the subsidy by a remission of Customs Duties a fixed subsidy was laid down, and an Excise Duty was charged upon the home produce. That is evidently responsible for the statement the Minister made in Committee, but the real fact is—and he has had enough experience at the Treasury, as well as at the Ministry of Agriculture now, to know it—that when a Chancellor of the Exchequer is faced with the alternative on the one hand of increasing a direct subsidy from the Ex-
chequer to a given commodity or allowing an Excise Duty to remain on, the pull all the time will be on the side of maintaining the Excise Duty. So far as the present Government are concerned, that has been made perfectly plain to us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for although he made many speeches when he was in the Liberal party, and not in the Tory party, about the wickedness of broadening the basis of taxation, he has made it perfecly clear, in his speeches during the last 12 months, that he is predisposed now in favour of broadening the basis of taxation rather than otherwise. Therefore, I submit that this additional Vote to-night will still further increase the bias of the Treasury in favour of keeping on the tax on this great and important food commodity of the people.
The second point I want to make is that when the British Sugar (Subsidy) Bill was going through the House in 1925 some of us, fortunately, insisted that the companies who were to receive this enormous subsidy—that is the only adjective to be applied to it—should be required to submit audited accounts to this House. Having secured that important concession—quite a new departure in that direction—I am rather surprised that more Members have not taken notice of the results. I find—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member also forgets that this is a Supplementary Estimate. I see that the House voted on the main Estimate £1,000,000 for the beet-sugar subsidy. This is an Estimate for an excess of £250,000, but that does not entitle hon. Members to go back over the whole matter, which was discussed on the main Estimate—the argument for or against a beet-sugar subsidy.

Mr. ALEXANDER: With great respect, Sir, I want to put this point to you. I take it that this additional sum of £250,000 is in respect of the current financial year, and that it arises from the action of the Government in developing still further the policy of having more factories erected and larger acreages put under sugar beet; and therefore I think it is in order for us to discuss the effect of the policy which has led up to this increased acreage, and the wisdom of voting this additional sum.

Mr. SPEAKER: As far as the increase is concerned, that certainly would be all right, but the hon. Member seemed to me to be going over the whole field which we debated on the main Estimate. He must confine himself to the increase.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I wish to keep within your ruling, Sir. The point I want to make is that this increase is not justified having regard to the results of the companies published during the current financial year and laid before this House. If you agree that is in order I can pursue my argument.

Mr. SPEAKER: Would not that involve the whole of the original £1,000,000 voted last year?

Mr. ALEXANDER: It might touch both.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot cover the whole field. He must confine himself to arguments against the increase.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I shall be very glad to do that. I think the increased subsidy is on an uneconomic basis, and that the voting of this money will encourage people to go into an industry which cannot finally be successful. The Minister of Agriculture, during the Committee Stage, indicated that he did not agree that finally this industry was bound to be uneconomic. On that occasion I quoted an extract from the "Public Ledger" stating that capitalists would be able to recoup themselves for the whole of their capital expenditure out of the subsidies. I see from the report of the Home and Colonial Stores that several factories have been largely subsidised by the Government, and it is stated that out of their profits they should be able to set aside a sum by the time the subsidies end equal to the capital invested. That is a statement made by the chairman of a company who speaks from very great experience on the whole question of sugar beet production and of the marketing generally of sugar, and he is perfectly well aware that a subsidy voted on this basis will enable the owners of the factories who receive the subsidy to recoup themselves entirely for their capital expenditure during the period of the subsidy. I think that is a most amazing position for us to be in.
There is another point I want to repeat, and it is of considerable importance.
We would very much like to see, if there is to be any gain from this subsidy, that it should go to the basic industry itself; that is the agricultural industry. I see from the results of the working of two companies which have been published that the subsidy received works out on the sugar percentage basis at 51s. to 52s. 6d. per ton, and yet during that season a considerable proportion of the beet was only able to produce for the farmer 44s. per ton. Under long-period contracts they might get more, but a subsidy voted on this basis is going to provide the factories with the whole of their raw materials for nothing and give them a bonus on the raw material as well.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a question which does not come within the Supplementary Estimate, and I could not allow the Minister to reply to those arguments.

REPORT [1ST MARCH].

Resolutions reported,

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1925–26.

CLASS VI.

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,225, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and other Expenses of Royal Commissions, Committees, and Special In quiries, etc., including provision for Short hand, and the Expenses of Surplus Stores, etc., Liquidation."

CLASS IV.

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Library, Scot land."

CLASS VI.

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £48,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for certain Salaries and Expenses of the Imperial War Graves Commission, including Purchase of Land in the United Kingdom, and a Grant-in-Aid of the Imperial War
Graves Commission Fund, formed under Royal Charter, 10th May, 1917, and a Contribution towards an Endowment Fund."

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £18,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, to provide for guarantees in respect of Exports of Goods wholly or partly produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom."

CLASS IV.

5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £180,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the vear ending on the 31st day of March, 1926. for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants-in-Aid."

6. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Public Education in Scotland, and for the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh, including a Grant-in-Aid."

CLASS II.

7. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £23,860, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Control (Lunacy and Mental Deficiency), England, and Grants in respect of the Maintenance of certain Ex-Service Mental Patients."

CLASS VII.

8. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, in cluding the Contributions to the Unemployment Fund, and Payments to Associations, Local Education Authorities and others for administration under the Unemployment Insurance and Labour Exchanges Acts; Expenditure in connection with the Training of Demobilised Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, and Nurses; Grants for Resettlement in Civil Life; and the Expenses of the Industrial Court; also Expenses in connection with the Inter national Labour Organisation (League of Nations), including a Grant-in-Aid."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. ALEXANDER: Do I understand that the Government propose to introduce a Bill to cover the scheme foreshadowed by the Financial Secretary? Will it be possible to consider the elaboration of that Bill, and will it include sums to provide, for the cost of relatives visiting these graves?

Mr. McNEILL: I should not like to speak very dogmatically on that point at the present moment, but I should certainly say that the Bill would not be an appropriate occasion for dealing with such a proposal. The Bill only deals with a very limited subject, namely, our contribution towards a fund which is also contributed to by the Dominions under a Royal Charter. However desirable the object of my hon. Friend might be, I do not think that the Bill now before the House which has been read a First time would be an appropriate method of introducing what he has suggested.

Ordered, "That further consideration of the Resolution be adjourned."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Resolution to be further considered Tomorrow.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Major Ainsworth, Mr. Batey, Mr. Blundell, Captain Bourne, Sir William Bull, Sir Charles Cayzer, Mr. Clarry, Mr. Clowes, Mr. John Guest, Lieut.-Colonel James, Major Kenyon - Slaney, Mr. Foot Mitchell, Sir Robert Thomas and Mr. Robert Wilson nominated Members of the Committee.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

NURSING HOMES (REGISTRATION).

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and inquire into the question of the inspection and supervision of Nursing Homes, and to report what legislation, if any, is necessary or desirable for this purpose.

Sir Cyril Cobb, Dr. Vernon Davies, Mr. Ernest Evans, Sir Leolin Forestier-Walker, Mr. Hurst, Major-General Sir
Richard Luce, Mrs. Philipson, Major Price, Dr. Salter, Miss Wilkinson and Mr. C. H. Wilson nominated Members of the Committee.

Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records."

Ordered, "That three be the quorum."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

ESTIMATES.

Ordered, "That Major Sir Archibald Sinclair be discharged, and that Mr. Ellis Davies be nominated a Member of the Committee."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Mr. SPEAKER: There being a Private Member's Motion down on the Paper for 8.15, I will leave the Chair until that time.

NECESSITOUS AREAS.

Mr. HAYDAY: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the extra expenditure imposed upon local authorities in Necessitous Areas in consequence of bad trade and unemployment is an intolerable and unjust burden upon the ratepayers in these areas and ought to be made a national charge.
There have been many arguments on the Floor of the House on different occasions, and there has been special pleading for particular necessitous areas that have been outstanding in their distress and trouble, but I venture to suggest that there is scarcely an industrial centre in Great Britain that has not now become what one might well term a necessitous area. Since 1921, when we felt the effect of the trade slump and the general depression and distress that followed in its trail, there has been an ever-increasing handicap for those areas, which are almost exclusively industrial in character. They are in the position now of being crippled and begging of the nation, through one of the Government Departments, for permission to borrow from the nation's resources, in the creation of which, I venture to suggest, they themselves took a hand during the period of prosperity. The very people who are now suffering in the necessitous areas are those who helped to build up the great individual fortunes, and also to amass the national wealth. Adversity has come their way,
and, in all the talk about the spirit of kindliness and about equality of suffering, quite a one-sided view has been taken of their trouble.
On the one hand, many areas, like Kensington, are free from this handicap, but the industrialists of the East End of London and other centres in the country, which are merely the dormitories of those who toil and spin in factory and workshop and in the busy centres of prosperous cities, have become more and more enslaved, and their future has been mortgaged for such a period and to such an extent that the next two or three generations will be severely handicapped in their struggle to bring back the equipoise of those centres, which are now suffering so much distress through no fault of their own. To-day we find, where figures are available, that there is an increasing number of applicants for some form of parish relief from boards of guardians, and we are confronted with statistics and facts which go to show that these very boards of guardians, owing to the long period during which they have had to meet these emergencies, are to-day almost without funds to enable them to sustain the physique of their people. We constantly hear of their having to plead with the Ministry of Health for power to borrow money, and we find that, even where permission is given, the full toll of interest is chargeable on the money raised, and those interest charges add still further to the handicap.
I am going to suggest that we cannot get a full perspective of the stark tragedy of poverty that lies behind this call for national help to the necessitous areas, even from a figure of so many thousands being relieved through the Poor Law guardians. That does not reflect the full extent of the poverty, the suffering, and the needs of the locality; it just represents to what extent that locality is able to meet the demands that are made upon it. One may get figures for payments by Poor Law guardians ranging as high, in the case of Poplar, as £6 per head of the population per annum for the purpose of relieving distress, or one may get other figures of 60s., 50s., 40s., or 30s. per head of the population in the area; but I venture to suggest that these resources and possibilities will diminish as time goes on, and that the amount of relief the local authority will be capable of giving must diminish, from
very lack of resources. Indeed, I have heard of one Welsh area where they have actually had to reduce the Poor Rate in order to get any return at all from a rate levy. That will sound rather curious, at any rate to the outside world. It might seem to show that they are so prosperous that they can afford to reduce their rate levy, but quite the reverse is the case; they are too poor to pay the rate that it is necessary to levy, and, consequently, the rate has to be eased in order to get something in. That represents a greater demand for that area, even though it has been compelled, in order to get in some sort of rate, to reduce its levy upon the ratepayers.
I have to ask the House to be a little patient while I make one or two comparisons, because, while these figures will convey some meaning to those who thoroughly appreciate the position, I am afraid that to the outside world they will convey but very little unless a deeper study is made of them. We find that in September, 1924, over all England, excluding Monmouthshire, Poor Law relief was given to 266 per 10,000 of population, while at the corresponding date in 1925, the number had increased to 301. Taking Wales, including Monmouthshire, in September, 1924, the figure was 360 per 10,000 of population, and at the corresponding date in 1925 it had risen to 503 per 10,000 of population. Those are average figures for the whole country, and, that being the case, I would ask hon. Members of this House to note how particular districts are hit. If the figure for all England is 301 per 10,000 of population, what shall we say of a hard-hit area like Poplar, where, on the 27th September, 1924, 1,628 in every 10,000 of the population were being relieved, while on the 26th September, 1925, that number had increased to 1,767 per 10,000? The figures for Bermondsey for the corresponding period were 1,156 and 1,316, and in the case of West Ham, 936 and 846.
Those are three typical working-class necessitous areas of London, one in the South East and two in the East—one an extra-metropolitan and one a metropolitan borough. The same story you will find in most other industrial centres. If I take South Shields, in September, 1924. 480 per 10,000 were in receipt of relief.
In the corresponding period of 1925 it had risen to 1,166. These are periods when it was said trade was lifting. This Poor Law barometer demonstrates that we have it, attempt to hide it as much as we will, more stark in our midst than it has yet been, for if one traces the figures back we are hardly likely to reach figures of this magnitude. At Newcastle-on-Tyne for the same two periods the figures are 774 and 852, Middlesbrough 472 and 542, Merthyr Tydvil 619 and 1,037, Pontypridd 551 and 865, Monmouth Unions, excepting Newport, 434 and 642. I am leaving out towns like Lincoln, Nottingham, Sheffield and Barrow-in-Furness, many of which come up to the mark of 400 per 10,000 population. In some of those cases you get three persons out of every 20 receiving poor relief. You can go to one or two other areas and you will find the proportion worked out in some cases as low as 50 per 10,000 in one Poor Law area and 1,700 per 10,000 in another.
If one examines the matter of loans to guardians, here again it brings out a few of the very poorest areas. I am quoting now from the Minister of Health's Report for 1924–25 in which it states that on 1st April, 1925, the number of Poor Law authorities authorised to borrow under the Local Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act, 1921, and subsequent Acts extending the operation of that Act was 24, the figure for 1st April, 1924, being 23. The total amount represented by the sanctions held by the 24 unions was £6,907,500, as compared with £6,676,500 on 1st April, 1924, and £5,714,000 on 1st April, 1923, sanctioning 35 and 54 unions, respectively. On 1st April, 1925, more than £6,000,000 of the total amount of £6,970,500 was attributable to the eight unions of Barrow-in-Furness, Bedwelty, Birmingham, Middlesbrough, Poplar, Sheffield, West Derby and West Ham. Six-sevenths of the total loans of that year were advanced to eight areas, which were then in a state of keen distress. That does not represent the full picture, but it draws out from the welter of poverty and distress in necessitous areas the fact that eight of them convinced the Government Department that their necessity called for an amount of not less than £6,000,000 in relief. What would have happened had all the
necessitous areas petitioned for advances under these circumstances one, of course, hesitates to try to guess.
The figures I have given have been comparative of September, 1924, with September, 1925, because the last available figures are for September, 1925. That does not represent the full volume of the troubles in necessitous areas. Since that date the position has become infinitely worse, because we had the Unemployment Act just prior to September, 1925, and its operations for clearing off, under the discretion of the Ministry of Labour, many thousands of persons then drawing extended benefit and the increased rapidity with which others were disqualified from drawing unemployment benefit means that, bad as were the cases represented up to September, 1925, it is worse since 1925. A little while ago I was able to get some statements in answer to a questionnaire, not sent by the Government, to certain boards of guardians desiring to know what was the effect of the operation of the 1925 Unemployment Act.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): Will the hon. Member say what this questionnaire is and where it comes from?

Mr. HAYDAY: I said it was not from a Government Department.

Sir K. WOOD: Where does it come from?

Mr. HAYDAY: It is one used by me for the purpose of securing information for comparative purposes. This carries us to December. I am now quoting the number of persons remaining on the live register from June, 1925, to 21st December. I mention Birmingham first because of the particular interest of the Minister of Health. Birmingham on 29th June had on the live register 25,459 unemployed persons. On 21st December, with the operation of the Minister's discretion and other restrictive provisions in the Act, that number was reduced to 21,074. That is a reduction of 4,400. Turning to the number in receipt of Poor Law relief for the same periods, one finds that in Birmingham in June, 1925, 7,839 persons who were unemployed and insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, whether in receipt of benefit or not, were
being relieved, whereas in December when the live register was down by 4,400, leading to the country to believe that 4,400 more persons had found situations in Birmingham, there were drawing Poor Law relief, 9,039. The number in receipt of out-door relief had increased by 1,200, while the live register had decreased by 4,400. I challenge any contradiction of these figures.
The Bristol figures show, on the live register in June, 1925, 15,134 persons signing, and in December the number had been reduced to 13,049, while of those in receipt of Poor Law relief, there were 5,691 in June and 7,190 in December. Therefore, the figures which indicated greater prosperity by showing that fewer had signed on at the Exchange, are belied by the statement that there were more in receipt of Poor Law relief.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member will understand the difficulty I am in. I do not know who has addressed the questionnaire, and who has replied to it. As far as the figures for Birmingham are concerned, I have checked them with the numbers I have got, and they do not agree. The hon. Member ought to inform the House who has addressed the questionnaire and who has supplied the figures.

Mr. HAYDAY: The questionnaire was sent out by the joint research department of the British Trade Union Congress and the Labour party, and was sent to clerks of boards of guardians. It is presumed that they have been replied to by those clerks.

Sir K. WOOD: Am I to understand that the clerk to the Birmingham Union gave the figures relating to Birmingham?

Mr. HAYDAY: I am led to believe so, and I have no reason to disbelieve it. The figures there are, for the four weeks ending 30th June, 1925, 7,839, and for the same period ending 31st December, 1925, 9037. Perhaps one of the worst cases is that of Gateshead. On the 30th June, 1925, Gateshead showed an increase on the live register of 9,854, and that had increased to 11,902 in December. Here is a strange fact, that while there is an increase of 2,000 on the live register, there are actually 11,000 more in receipt of Poor Law relief, the figures being, for the four weeks ending 30th June, 1925, 10,381, and for the four weeks ending 31st
December, 1925, 21,536. The Middlesbrough figures bear pretty well the same ratio. In the case of Middlesbrough, there is a reduction of 700 on the live register and an increase of 2,300 shown as receiving some form of Poor Law relief.
These figures show that the position has become worse. There is a progressive increase in the rate per 10,000 of the population who are compelled to seek relief from the Poor Law guardians; then there are the operations of the Employment Act, 1925, which clear people off the live register and mislead the public into the belief that trade is improving, whereas bad trade is reflected by adding to the volume of applications for relief from the boards of guardians.
Take the case of Birmingham again. In reply to a question in this House by the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Compton) certain figures were given in regard to Birmingham. The final part of the answer states:
Of the total number of persons in receipt of domiciliary relief on the 1st January, 1925, 51 per cent. were under 16 years of age, 46 per cent. between 16 and 70 years of age, and 3 per cent. were over 70 years of age. The corresponding percentages for those in receipt of institutional relief are 29, 15, and 16. Ex-servicemen and their dependants constituted 47 per cent. of the persons in receipt of domiciliary relief on the 3rd May, 1924, and 17 per cent. of the persons in receipt of institutional relief."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1925; cols. 955–956, Vol. 182.]
This is the way the wreckage piles up. Let us be careful lest the wreckage piles up in such volume as to obstruct permanently the full and free development of British trade and commerce. We cannot afford a perpetuation of the fact that in Birmingham, one of the busiest hives of industry, and one of the greatest contributors to the nation's well-being, when it has its opportunity, there should be 46 per cent. of the persons in receipt of out-door relief who are ex-service men—men who fought for homes fit for heroes to live in, who have come down with the general crash and have become merged in the whirlpool of despair until they are like so many pieces of flotsam and jetsam, to drift here and there. We ask the nation to fulfil her obligations no less in peace time than she promised to do in war time, at a time when things were fresh and people were busy, some of them
counting up their banking accounts, which were the results of the sacrifices made by the men who are now allowed to drift.
Let the House realise what has been happening. The longer we go on, the greater the hardship for these necessitous localities. The longer we go on, the less able will they be to make contributions towards the relief of distress. The greater they pile up debt, the more will they be landed into bankruptcy up to the second or third generation of their citizens to work themselves out of bankruptcy, and we are allowing them to drift into it.
Surely some national effort is worth making in this respect. Places like Poplar, West Ham, Newcastle, Merthyr Tydvil have been great contributors to the wealth of the nation in the years gone by, they have contributed to the utmost of their limits, and now, when they are in the position they are at the moment, they are, I think, worthy of some consideration.
Let me put two or three questions to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who represents the Government at the moment. If he can reply his answers will show the great sacrifices which these industrial centres have made in the past. I am afraid the extent of their sacrifices since 1920 is not appreciated, and if we can have the figures I am sure the amount would startle many people in this country. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us the total amount spent by local authorities on anticipated work. We asked them some time ago to anticipate work and put in hand as much as they could in order to absorb the unemployed. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what amount has been expended in anticipatory work and special work schemes by local authorities. Will he tell us how much has been spent in Poor Law relief by boards of guardians, and the amount of money that has been spent under the Necessitous Children Act; in the feeding of school children since January, 1921, to January, 1926, which is the period of our deepest depression and when great numbers of men and women were thrown out of work and came on the unemployment list. I hope we shall get a promise that some easement will be provided for these dark and desolate places, which at
the present moment resemble a burial ground rather than busy industrial hives. It is sad to contemplate that there are men, women and children who are anxious and willing to work, but who have to live without the necessities of life. Let us not criticise them, but rather see if we cannot hold out the helping hand in a much more generous measure than we have ever done beforehand give some help to these necessitous areas.

Mr. W. THORNE: I beg to second the Motion.
There are between 50 and 60 Members in the House who represent what is known as necessitous areas, and I take it for granted that every one of them would like the opportunity of placing their position before the House. I am very sorry that the Minister of Health himself is not present to-night, because I feel convinced that the arguments which will be advanced would have made a lasting impression on his mind. About two years ago Poplar was a very notorious place. They had an awful row there, several of the members went to prison, and the Government, in consequence, had to bring in a Bill for the purpose of relieving Poplar and other necessitous centres in the Metropolitan area. Poplar received considerable assistance from that Act, and has passed out of the picture for the time being. Now it is West Ham that is notorious. There have been some very wicked things said about West Ham by people who do not know that West Ham is in the County of Essex and do not know the class of people who live in West Ham.
Let me remind the House that there is a great deal of difference between the Poor Law Union of West Ham and the Borough of West Ham. The Poor Law Union is made up of seven or eight local authorities, and represents a population of about 800,000, while the Borough of West Ham has a population of little over 300,000. I expect the Parliamentary Secretary will be asking us to define a necessitous area. I think I can anticipate what he is going to say in reply to this Debate. I know it is somewhat difficult to define a necessitous area, but we say that there should be no difficulty at all about it. Hon. Members on this side of the House have said on more than one occasion that all the money that is being
paid by Poor Law authorities throughout the country as a consequence of the great depression through which we are passing and the many men and women out of employment, who are compelled to go to the Poor Law authorities for relief, should foe paid by the National Exchequer. And I want to tell the Government that until that time arrives there will be no settlement of this question.
Even if trade revives, if it does revive—I am one of those who believe that you will never get the volume of trade we had in the days gone by—you will always have at least 500,000 men out of work who will be compelled to receive Poor Law relief from time to time. I have been the chairman of a Poor Law necessitous Areas Committee since 1921, and the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thompson) has been vice-chairman during the whole of that period. We have done our level best to try and persuade all Governments to deal with this very important question. A deputation waited upon the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health on 6th December, 1921. The position in 1921 was not nearly as bad as it is now. Deputations have waited upon various Governments from that day to the present time. I remember that on one occasion—I think it was in 1922—when the present right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was the Prime Minister of the Coalition Government, one of the largest deputations that ever waited upon a Prime Minister went from all the Poor Law necessitous areas and from the municipalities, and the present Minister of Health was on that occasion one of the chief spokesmen. I do not know whether there was a verbatim report taken of the interview, but I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to peruse the statements made to the then Prime Minister by the present Minister of Health, and I am convinced that he would have no hesitation in saying that the Government would accept this Motion.
9.0 P.M.
In July of last year there was another deputation which waited upon the present Prime Minister. He was so impressed with the statements made that he promised to set up a Committee for the purpose of inquiring into various schemes that might be presented to the? Committee. The Committee was set up.
I think Sir Harry Goschen is the Chairman of the Committee. Evidence was given by various people. I was the first witness called. I am not sure whether the Parliamentary Secretary has read that statement of mine. If he has, I am sure that it is convincing enough for anything. Then the present Borough Treasurer of West Ham and my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough and the chairman of the Sheffield Board of Guardians gave evidence. I am hoping that the Committee will present their Report before the coming Budget is framed. I am sure that the Committee have received all the evidence that they want and that the Parliamentary Secretary has in the Ministry of Health all the information that is wanted on this particular question. I do not say that there has been any collusion between the Minister of Health and the Committee, and that the Committee do not want to present a Report-to the Government, so that the Government can persuade the Treasury and the Treasury can persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make provisions in his Budget, in which case I am very much afraid that we shall be in the same position as we are in now. On Monday, 6th July, I put the following question to the Minister of Health:
To ask the Minister of Health if he is prepared to issue a statement showing the amount of loans lent to the various boards of guardians by the negotiating committee in all parts of the country; the rate of interest charged for each loan; and the amount of principal and interest payable for each year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1925; col. 60, Vol. 186.]
The right hon. Gentleman presented me with a return relating to Barrow-in-Furness, Bedwelty, Crickhowell, Neath, Poplar, Redruth, Sheffield and West Ham. I want Members of the House to take particular notice of the deplorable position in which the Borough of West Ham finds itself. You may say that I am dwelling too much on the Borough of West Ham. But it is only a matter of degree between West Ham and many other local authorities. West Ham borrowed £300,000 at 6 per cent., £200,000 at 5 per cent., £1,300,000 at 4¾ per cent., and within the last two months they were compelled to borrow another £300,000 at 5 per cent. West Ham is called upon to do what? To pay in the shape of principal and
interest: For the year 1924–25, £223,520; 1925–26, £239,844; 1926–27, £328,563; 1927–28, £354,266; 1928–29, £275,160; and then it gradually dwindles away until the year 1932–33, when they will be called upon to pay £5,119. Just imagine when this gets to the peak! That will be in 1927–28, when the payment will be £354,256. The money that they are borrowing now is money borrowed for the purpose of paying the Government back again.
It is quite impossible for West Ham and similar Poor Law authorities to go on in the direction in which they are now travelling. If I had my way—I have the will but not the power—I would give a clean sheet to all these local authorities. I am not quite sure whether the Government will ever get all that money back from West Ham. I can tell the Parliamentary Secretary the stage at which many of the boards of guardians are arriving now. They have found out, after pleading like a cripple at a cross, that they are getting no relief from the Government in any shape or form; and unless the Government are prepared to come forward in some direction they will find that the position will be more serious than it is already. There are one or two members of the West Ham Board of Guardians who, on more than one occasion, have urged the board of guardians to refuse absolutely to pay any relief to men and women who are out of employment. If all the boards of guardians in the country took up that attitude the Government would find themselves in a very tight corner.
I can just anticipate what the Parliamentary Secretary will say in reply. He is going to tell us, I am sure, that a Committee has been considering the matter, and that until it is in a position to make a report the Government are not prepared to do anything. I know it is not usual to read in the House letters which have been sent to Members, but in consequence of the deplorable condition in which West Ham, in common with many other boroughs, finds itself in this respect I will, with permission, read a letter from the Clerk of the West Ham Poor Law Guardians:
In spite of the official figures quoted from time to time in the daily Press, the position in regard to unemployment in necessitous areas has steadily grown worse. In January last increases were shown in
the number of persons on the registers of the Employment Exchanges in such districts as Newcastle, Tees Side, Sunderland and Sheffield, and this was reflected in the number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief in the same month. The rate per 10,000 of the estimated population of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief in Newcastle was 791—ran increase of 275—in the Tees district the rate was 637, an increase of 134; in Glasgow it was 972, an increase of 173, and in this district"—
that is the district which I represent—
it was 946, the increases being as compared with a year ago. A further factor which governs the position is that by reason of the stringency with which the Ministry of Labour Regulations are now being administered by the Employment Exchanges a very large number of individuals have been refused standard and extended benefit and compelled to resort to the Poor Law for their needs. Of course, the argument used is that the Unemployment Insurance Acts are based upon a system of insurance and are not benefit schemes, but the bald fact remains that the cost of a very large volume of public assistance afforded to unemployed persons has been transferred from the National Exchequer to local rates. Taking this area "—
the area which I represent—
in one Employment Exchange alone the numbers on the live registers in the month of June, 1925, as compared with October, 1925, had increased from 10,100 to 11,500, but the amount of unemployment benefit distributed in the period had been reduced from £35,000 to £20,000, and, I repeat, local rates had to a large extent to make up the deficiency. This method of economising on the part of the Exchequer cannot go on indefinitely. It is perfectly true that the Prime Minister after considerable delay set up a Committee to consider and report on any scheme which might be submitted to them for special assistance from the Exchequer to local authorities in necessitous urban and quasi-urban areas. This was so long ago as November last, but up to the present no Report has been received, and the areas concerned are anxious and impatient to learn whether there is any prospect or hope of their being granted help to meet their needs. In this union the board of guardians have been compelled quite recently again to resort to the Minister of Health for a further loan of £300,000 to enable them to meet their current expenses entirely due to unemployment. Their total indebtedness to the Minister is now over £2,050,000. Allowing for repayments made in respect of principal and as these loans carry interest varying from 6 per cent. to 4¾ per cent., the seriousness of the situation will be realised. In actual practice, to enable the guardians to pay the interest and instalments of principal when due, the vicious system has been resorted to of borrowing from the Minister to repay him. This surely is heading for sheer bankruptcy, and the Minister must realise it. It is idle to urge that the local
ratepayers should meet their own liabilities; they are doing more than this. For some years past now they have levied for Poor Law purposes the enormous rate of 9s. in the £ in each year, and they rightly claim that this is the highest poor rate throughout England and Wales, and unless industry in their locality is to be completely and entirely crippled, a heavier call on the ratepayers cannot be made. The Minister of Health knows full well the gravity of the position to which I am alluding, and that from the returns supplied to his Department for the last week, the guardians were called upon to disburse in outdoor relief the stupendous sum of £28,000.
That state of affairs cannot go on for all time and I make an energetic and earnest appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to help these areas for I think perhaps he has some heart though I expect he has received instructions what to do in this matter. I am convinced, however, that it will be necessary to do something. It is no good telling the House about the difficulty of defining a necessitous area. We have taken the Poor Kate throughout England and Wales and endeavoured to strike an average. I think at the present time the average is 2s. 7½d. and while I contend that all the money now paid by guardians to the unemployed, should be paid from the National Exchequer, here is a suggested compromise—namely, that all money paid by Poor Law authorities over 2s. 7Jd. should be met from the National Exchequer. I am not in the position to state what amount that proposal would involve. It might cost £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, but I think it would pay, because if the boards of guardians take it upon themselves to refuse to administer relief to the unemployed, the Government will find themselves in an even worse position than that which they are in at present. I apologise for taking up so much time, but this is a question of great importance not only to West Ham but to industrial centres throughout the length and breadth of the land.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am certain I voice the feelings of all who represent areas which cannot be described as necessitous, when I say that we sympathise with the difficulties of Members of Parliament and municipal representatives in those areas. The constituency which I represent is relatively fortunate, but I was on two occasions candidate for another area which was very much a necessitous area. Some two
years ago it was placed among the 12 worst districts of the country. Therefore I have seen both sides of the picture. I have listened with close attention to the speech of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne) and to most of the speech of the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Hayday). Both referred to certain areas in particular. The hon. Member for West Ham referred to the borough which he represents and which, curiously enough, has recently shown an improving position. I notice the proportion per 10,000 of the population in receipt of relief is 31 less than It was a year ago, taking a selected day in January, and 12 less than it was in the month of December.
The other area which was selected is very different in character, namely, Birmingham, where there has been a decrease of 51 as compared with a year ago. If you contrast these two areas you find some very remarkable things. In West Ham, out of every 10,000 of the population, no fewer than 946 are in receipt of Poor Law assistance, whereas in Birmingham the number is only 277. If you take an area like North Staffordshire, where the pottery industry has had a peculiarly difficult time, though I think it is rather better now, the total is only 201. If you travel not quite so far East as West Ham, and stop short in the Eastern district of London, you get a total of 1,153 out of every 10,000 in receipt of Poor Law relief. The range of variation is so great—and very much greater than the range of variation of unemployment in those areas—that I think we are compelled to ask ourselves whether the proportion of Poor Law relief borne by the different districts is entirely the result of the economic conditions prevailing in those districts, or whether it is not in part the result of the deliberate policy pursued by the boards of guardians in some of those areas.

Mr. J. JONES: We thought that was coming.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In answer to my hon. Friend, if I may be privileged to call him so, the Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), I would say that one is entitled to make the comment that if hon. Members come here and demand that this burden shall be made a national charge, those who represent other areas which
will be compelled to contribute towards that national charge are entitled to examine the local circumstances which afflict at least some of the necessitous areas. I still remember, some two or three years ago, when I was a candidate for Wednesbury, a deputation, consisting of the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. F. O. Roberts), the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short), and the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. Sitch), all Members of the party opposite, waiting upon the Dudley Board of Guardians. The Chairman of that board happened to be a member of the Labour party, and when the three Members of Parliament, who were accompanied by a large number of friends, had stated their case, the Labour Chairman of the board of guardians remarked, somewhat sarcastically, that it was not often the privilege of a chairman of a board of guardians to receive three Members of Parliament, but he wanted to make it quite clear—I paraphrase his words—that if they expected him to impose such charges upon the local rates that the local industry would never revive, he was not going to do it. I am going to suggest to hon. Members opposite that if they possessed as much political courage as was possessed by that Chairman, some of the necessitous areas would not be suffering from the difficulties from which they suffer to-day. None of us like to say "No." The most difficult word in the English language to say is "No," but if you never say "No," you will debauch the people, and you will restore them to the conditions which prevailed prior to the Poor Law Commission of 1834, and you will force a big reform, which may in the long run, I imagine, be disadvantageous to the party opposite. In the long run there comes from the general public a reaction against any attempt to debauch the electorate by the too free granting of any kind of relief, Poor Law or other.
The hon. Gentleman who proposed the Resolution has not, I think, devoted as much time to the study of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" as he might have done. On at least three occasions in this House I have drawn attention to an error which prevails, I am afraid, to the effect that the number of persons on the live register and the number of persons in receipt of
unemployment benefit are the same thing. The people who are on the live register are those who have signed on in the hope of getting a job, and they are not necessarily the same as those who are in receipt of unemployment benefit. The hon. Member for South Nottingham said that by the end of last year we had pushed people off the live register and forced them on to the Poor Law, but I want to point out that the disallowance of benefit does not force anybody off the live register.

Mr. HAYDAY: What is the use of signing it when there is no benefit to draw?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I have drawn from the hon. Member precisely what I wanted, but my opinion of my fellow countrymen is that they sign the register in the hope of getting a job, because that, and not benefit, is what they are really looking for.

Mr. J. JONES: If they cannot get a job, they have to starve. Do not insult us.

Mr. LANSBURY: A considerable number of those are knocked off because there is no prospect, so they are told by the Employment Exchanges, of ever finding work again.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am fully aware of what the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) says, but may I also point out that, if he will study the detailed statement which is issued month by month in the "Labour Gazette," he will find the grounds on which people have been disqualified? For example, if he will take the period which ended on the 11th January, 1926, he will find that there were 34,449 persons disallowed in that period, of whom 11,559 were disallowed on the ground that they had not had a reasonable period of insurable employment during the preceding two years, but the number who were not normally insurable and not seeking to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment was 3,952, or about one-eighth of the total. The other seven-eighths did not suffer from the disqualification, as the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley suggested. I quoted the figure of 3,952 because that was the total number coming into the class quoted by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley.

Mr. J. JONES: Figures cannot lie, but lies can figure.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I will not weary the House by reading a lengthy table of figures, but I have chosen the particular figure which came into the category mentioned by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, and I have shown that it only represented one-eighth of the total. I hold that my fellow-countrymen have a very much higher standard than that attributed to them by the hon. Member for South Nottingham, because I find that on the 25th January there were 79,422 persons who, though they were disqualified, yet maintained registration, and in addition to that there were on what is known as the two months' list, that is to say, persons in receipt of benefit but of whom no record has been received for two months, no fewer than 109,000, so you see, as a matter of fact, that in practice the live register tends to be, with some error, but only a small error, a reasonable record of the total number of persons who are in fact unemployed. That there should have been an increase in Poor Law relief during a period when there has been some decline of unemployment is not altogether strange. The Act of last year did definitely deprive certain people of benefit. Some of those people sought relief from the guardians, and if their circumstances were such as to justify it, they got relief.
Therefore, it is perfectly evident that you may, as a result of a change in legislation, find at one and the same time a real decrease in unemployment coupled with some temporary increase in the number receiving Poor Law relief, but if you will follow these statistics month by month in the "Labour Gazette," you will discover that there is an amazing variety of practice among the Poor Law guardians up and down the country. Some of them interpret their duties in a spirit of broad sympathy, but yet with a rigid determination that there shall be no exploitation of the ratepayers. In those areas destitution is effectively relieved, while, on the other hand, there is no encouragement to pauperisation and no demoralisation of the people. I can assure hon. and right hon. Members opposite that there is nothing which more irritates the ordinary man and woman, irrespective of rank, class or wealth, than the idea that certain
persons are being encouraged to sponge on the general public. It is one's constant experience in conversation with people, whether rich or poor, and after all there is in this country a tradition even too strong against "going on the parish." It is carried to the point of folly. So deep is the pride of our people in regard to receiving Poor Law relief, that many who should take advantage of the splendid infirmaries will not do so because of the taint of pauperism. I admire them, but I think it is carried to the extent of folly. I think that spirit is better than the spirit which is not advantaging in the long run those who live in the area of West Ham.

Mr. J. JONES: Do not talk about West Ham. It is better than Reading any day.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It may be, but we make better biscuits. I did not introduce West Ham into this discussion; it was, introduced by the hon. and gallant Member for Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne). He raised arguments about the area he represents. He demands that the expenditure in that area shall be made a national charge, and, therefore, borne in part by my constituency. I in self-defence am entitled to examine critically the conditions under which Poor Law relief is carried out in West Ham.

Mr. T. SHAW: The last speaker will pardon me if I do not attempt to follow his arguments. I do not attempt to follow them because I believe the subject is rather more important than the scoring of mere debating points, and references to boards of guardians with a deliberate policy of putting people on the rates are, I think, arguments that one can leave on one side. The Resolution declares that the position as it exists now is intolerable and unjust. Is that a correct statement of the position of affairs? There need be no party bias on this matter. Are those words true in substance and in fact, is the question each Member on whatever side of the House he sits ought to ask himself. I argue that they are intolerable because precisely the people who are suffering most have the double burden upon them. There is no family would say that if one of its members was suffering, that member should have a double dose of suffering, and there should; be no nation which would see one section of its population suffering more than the other, and allow the state of things to
exist by which a double burden is thrown on the suffering part. The burdens are intolerable. The figures which have been given are the clearest possible proof of the fact that in many areas the burden is absolutely and without question crushing. In one part of the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, he contrasted an eastern borough with West Ham in order to show that things are not as bad as in West Ham. He proved himself that one person out of every 10 in that borough was actually a recipient of poor law relief That is a perfectly terrible state of affairs which nobody can look upon with equanimity. To make debating points on a statement of that kind is unworthy of the House.
We ought really to try to face this question in a different spirit. We declare in this Resolution that not only are the burdens intolerable and unjust, but that there ought to be steps taken to make this burden a national, rather than a local responsibility. Ought the burden to be made, as far as it can be made, national, or ought it, as far as it can, to be made local? That is the question that the House has to ask itself. It must be remembered—and every Member of the House knows it—that every year of this unemployment means an addition to the dejection, disintegration and deterioration of our people. The question is how best can we face the problems that exist. Ought this burden to be local or national? If there is one thing more than another that has caused this state of affairs it is the War. The War is directly responsible for this extraordinarily high level of unemployment. It is directly responsible for the sufferings of the people. Hundreds of thousands of these people who are suffering were men who fought in the War. Surely they ought to be, as far as they can be, made a national and not a local responsibility. Surely money should not have a higher claim than humanity. We have never attempted to get out of the responsibility to people who lent money during the War, but the State has tried to get out of a large part of its responsibility to men who fought during the War.
The question is, Are the Government willing to try to deal with it on the lines of a national responsibility, and to make
it as much a national responsibility as they can? Lenders of money get a full and overflowing measure of repayment which is based on the whole of the nation. The whole of the nation must contribute to the payment of interest on money lent during the War. Why should not the whole nation contribute in accordance with their means towards the upkeep of those people who are out of work and suffering directly as the result of the War? It is not economy to keep tightening the holes in belts. No sensible family would do it, and why should sensible nations? Does anybody doubt that these things exist, or that the double burden exists in certain parts. That is the point we ought to face with the desire, not to score party points but mutually to help to bring about a state of affairs in which one section of the population should not bear a burden absolutely crushing, while another section is getting off far more easily. We tried in 1924 to share out the burden a little bit better. We did try, by raising benefits and bringing more people into insurance, and various other methods to shard the burden more over industry. All the time we knew that this burden really ought to be a national burden, but the more we get it towards a national burden, the more we attain to a fair state of affairs. The nation ought to be proud to carry the responsibility of these men and women. If it had not been for many of them, there might not have been a nation in the sense we know it to-day.
That is a fact we ought always carefully to bear in mind. Not the town as a town, not the locality as a locality, but the nation as a nation ought to bear this burden, and ought to take the best steps it can to see that that burden is equally distributed over the nation, strictly in accordance with the capacity of its inhabitants to pay. When that is done, I think we shall get a little nearer to a settlement of the difficulties that exist. I am going to ask the hon. Gentleman if he will say a word about future policy, because those of us who are very uneasy at the present trend of affairs, think the policy is getting worse, and that instead of an attempt being made to put the burden on more shoulders, the attempt is being made to put the burden on fewer shoulders, and
to make the already deplorable condition of some of the big centres of industry still worse. We ought to know whether it is the intention of the Government to take any steps at all in order to make this burden more a national charge than it is now.
I have only one word to say in conclusion, and it is that the sufferings in some of our large towns have been sufferings which have been terribly bad to bear, and there is a great deal at stake during the next five or six years. It may be easy, after a course of years of unemployment and privation, of unemployment pay and Poor Law relief, to deteriorate vast masses of people, but it may take generations to bring them back to the standpoint of sterling independence which our people occupied before the deterioration took place. Because I believe that the burden is unjust and intolerable, and that unemployment ought to be made as much as it possibly can be made a national responsibility, I support the Resolution that has been moved to-night.

Mr. REMER: I have been very interested in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat, because he has told us in so many words that his view of this Resolution is that the necessitous areas should be more of a national than a local charge. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has not read the Resolution, because the Resolution proposes that the whole of the charge which is imposed upon necessitous areas shall become a national charge. That is not the speech which he has delivered. He repeated time after time that it should be more a national charge.

Lieut-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: If the hon Gentleman reads the second line of the Resolution he will see the words "extra expenditure."

Mr. REMER: It says that expenditure should be a national charge.

HON. MEMBERS: Extra expenditure!

Mr. J. JONES: He has not read the Resolution!

Mr. REMER: It means that the extra expenditure caused in these necessitous areas should all be a national charge. That is the one point upon which I join issue with hon. Members opposite. It strikes at the whole root of our local
Government. I am a firm believer in the principle that those people who spend the money should be the people to find the money. It is the greatest check we have in the interest of economy. If you are going to have a local government spending money, and somebody else having to find that money, the effect will be to strike right at the root of our whole local government, and surely that must mean that the whole of our local government will be abolished, and the affairs of local government brought into this House, in order that this House shall keep a check upon the expenditure it is called upon to meet. For these reasons, I am a great believer in the principle of local government. Local government in the form in which it stands may need improvement, but I think there is no finer thing than the principle of local government. This Resolution strikes at the whole root of it, and would mean its eventual destruction. There is a further point in the right hon. Gentleman's speech to which I must refer. He said that the whole cause of the trouble in these necessitous areas was the War. I might say that part of the cause is the Free Trade system which we have in this country at the present time.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I think that is rather wide of the subject.

Mr. REMER: I was not intending to pursue that at any length

Mr. WALLHEAD: You might have a little pity on him; he has got badly mixed.

Mr. REMER: I thought if we were to discuss the question of the War being the cause of the position in the necessitous areas, it would also be wide of the subject of Debate. People in business, probably more than most people, realise the heavy charge of local rates. We see the effect upon local industries in various directions, and know the heavy burden of local rates. I feel very strongly that if we are to leave to every Socialist local authority the right to spend whatever money they like, and to present their bill to this House and expect us to foot it and pay for their extravagances, that is an absolutely monstrous stats of affairs, and I, for one, will not for a moment assent to it. We on this side feel very strongly that there must be a check upon the extravagance
of those gentlemen who belong to some of those local authorities, whether boards of guardians or councils. We have to vote Supply for their spending, and the logical conclusion of this Resolution is that these extravagant bodies can spend whatever they like, and we in this House have got to foot whatever bill is presented for them. That is a monstrous position, and I, for my part, will have no hesitation in going into the Lobby against the Resolution.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The hon. Member who has just spoken seems to me strangely to have misread the Resolution. If he reads it he will there see that it refers to the extra expenditure imposed upon local authorities in consequence of trade and unemployment being abnormal at the present time. That is an entirely different thing to what he has suggested. As a matter of fact the question which we are discussing this evening is the larger problem of the adjustment between national and local burdens, a problem which has been discussed in this House, and outside, off and on for the last 25 years. There have been various inquiries, commissions, and departmental committees that have sat to investigate it. They have made reports. We have to go no further back than the year 1901 when there was a Royal Commission on Local Taxation, and that Commission recommended that there should be an increased grant from the Treasury to the local authorities. They pointed out—hon. Members opposite may not agree—that certain Services, the Poor Law, asylums, police, main roads and education, were in a large measure national and not a local charge.
We had a Departmental Committee on Local Taxation in 1914. They made some very strong and drastic recommendations which I am sorry to say have not yet been carried out. They pointed to a considerable increase in the amount of the State subventions to local authorities as being justifiable and necessary; if that was so then how much more true are those findings to-day? It was recommended in 1914 that education, Poor Law relief, police, main roads, public health, and mental deficiency should all be regarded as semi-national services. They recommended an increase of subventions to four and three-quarter million pounds.
That £4,750,000 represents something like £9,000,000 to-day. If you were getting a sum like that it would be more than the necessitous areas would ask for; yet this is what the Departmental Committee recommended so far back as 1914. It is rather significant that the terms of reference to this Committee were:
To make recommendations with a view to legislation at an early date.
I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health whether he cannot expedite that early date with a view to carrying out some of the recommendations of this Departmental Committee on Local Taxation. It is true that last year the Government, in their Rating and Valuation Bill, carried out in large measure the recommendations of that Departmental Committee. I submit that now, or next year, the Government might follow up and complete that work by making these extra subventions from the State to the local authorities where the burden of these semi-national charges is heavy. If the advice was sound in 1914, how much more so is it to-day with the abnormal unemployment—the aftermath of the War? The hon. Member who last spoke got somewhat sarcastic in speaking on some aspects of the necessitous areas. Surely, however, it must be within the recollection of hon. Members during the War in all the munition centres men ran to do the work that was necessary, and in the heavy iron and steel districts the population increased considerably. These people came to make munitions. In many cases they have been unable since to get away owing to the shortage of houses. Wherever you have the heavy iron and steel industries the burden of the excess population continues, and is a large abnormal increase.
What I say in this respect is borne out by the percentage figures of unemployment. We know that the average for the whole of the country is 11 per cent. Yet on the North-East coast in the shipbuilding centres—I have mentioned this before, and I shall have to go on mentioning it—on the North-East coast the unemployment in the shipbuilding industry is 50 per cent. In marine engineering it is 35 per cent. These are not merely transient figures and not only for some months, but for several years. Where you have 10 per cent. of unemploy-
ment it may, it is obvious, be a manageable proposition, but the problem becomes altogether an impossible one when you get anything like 35 or 50 per cent. in a district. If you take the matter by districts you will find the most startling variation between districts. Take the average of England and Wales you find that the unemployment last month was 9.9 per cent. In Durham county it was 19 per cent., whereas in other counties of a less industrial character than Durham it was less. In Leicestershire it was 1.1; in Warwickshire it was 1.5; and in Derbyshire it was 1.6. It was quite a manageable proposition in these various localities, but when you get to 19 per cent. over a whole county, it is a question whether or not national aid should come in!
Again, there is the variations between one district and another. In the industrial areas themselves you have very big variations. I can quote figures as to the relief per 10,000 given in some of these cases. The average for England and Wales for the last month was 356 per 10,000 persons. On Tees Side and Tyneside the number was 716 per 10,000 persons. You have that discrepancy reflected in the local rates. In the heavy industrial areas, the iron and steel districts, you have in Rotherham 17s. 3d. on the £, in Middlesbrough 18s. 8d. on the £, and in Merthyr Tydvil 26s. on the £. That is compared with, respectively, areas such as the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite represents, Bournemouth, where it is 8s. 2d. on the £, Blackpool 7s. 4d., and Southport 8s. 3d.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I have a good many industrialists in my constituency.

Mr. THOMSON: There you see the various inequalities of this burden. I submit that because the profits of limited liability companies earned in a district are not of necessity devoted to a district but are spent broadcast throughout the world, that the residential areas where the money is spent have a right to contribute towards the cost of unemployment. Not only is this heavy burden in the industrial areas crippling individuals and tradesmen, but it naturally has its effect upon industry and retards the industrial recovery for which we all look
and hope. It is essential that we should deal with this problem of unemployment. I have quoted figures, and I have fresh figures which hon. Members opposite may be interested in. Take the north-east coast for example. Where the local rates in 1913 represented 8d. per ton on the steel made, last year the same rates had increased to 10s. per ton. Talk about Protection! The protection we need is from the heavy rates which are crippling our trade in competition with the rest of the world.

Sir H. CROFT: The hon. Gentleman wants to see more imports. How is that going to improve unemployment? What about the increase of imports during the last four years?

Mr. THOMSON: The hon. Gentleman should study the Board of Trade returns, and he would find that the more imports went up the more the rate of unemployment goes down, and more imports go down the more unemployment goes up. In regard, however, to the question of the heavy burden of rates on industry, may I quote what the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health said in 1923:
I think it is generally understood that in some of the areas the burden of rates upon local industries is a burden which is not like the Income Tax, dependent upon profits made, but which has to be borne by the industries whether they make profits or not, and at present this burden is so heavy that it really forms a serious handicap to the industries and prevents them even from getting upon their legs.
In view of that, it would be sound policy economically to transfer some of the burdens from the rates to the National Exchequer. Then we should get some of the burden on the profits, instead of its being a first charge on production, as it is when the whole of it is left to he borne by the local authorities of those areas. We might appeal to the Prime Minister to support us in that contention, because in the Debate in June of last year he referred in sympathetic terms to the "black spots" of these areas, and invited the House to consider, as he said the Government were doing, whether
by any form of subsidy it may be possible to give, as I said, that stimulus and lift in the region of those industries which seem at the moment to be beaten down into a position of helplessness … by subsidies in specially distressed districts in aid of rates, to take that burden off those who manufacture in that district."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1925; col. 2085, Vol. 185.]
That was the suggestion of the Prime Minister himself eight months ago. How far have the Government got in considering that matter? It seems to me that instead of relieving industry by giving additional subventions to reduce the rates their policy has been exactly the opposite. Let me give four instances of this policy. The Road Fund raid; Education Circular 1371 and Memorandum 44; the Unemployment Grants Circular of the 15th December; the tightening up of the Insurance Act administration. Those four have the direct result of reducing the contributions from the Treasury and increasing the burdens on the local rates. It is somewhat extraordinary that whilst unemployment is increasing in certain parts of the country, less money is voted by the Unemployment Grants Committee to those local authorities there. Could not the Parliamentary Secretary bring influence to bear upon the Unemployment Grants Committee to be more generous to these local authorities, who are doing their utmost to carry the heat and burden of the day? In my own particular district, with a population of only 130,000, we have spent over £1,000,000 in unemployment relief works, a very considerable contribution for a place where the rates are 18s. 8d. in the pound.
10.0 P.M.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will make representations to the Minister and the Government that work is better than unemployment benefit or parish relief. During the five or six years since the Armistice we have, as the right hon. Gentleman for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), told us earlier in the day, spent £250,000,000 to £300,000,000; that is, cash paid away in out-of-work donation, unemployment benefit and Poor Law relief without any service whatever rendered in return. It is not a sound policy to go on spending these hundreds of millions, almost £100,000,000 a year for no services in return. Work is preferable to benefit or Poor Law relief, and if the Parliamentary Secretary cannot persuade the Government to forge out national schemes of a productive character, he should at any rate encourage local authorities to go on with work which they are prepared to put in hand but which they cannot undertake without an increased grant. Although the present formula of
assistance, 75 per cent. for half the period of the loan, may sound a large figure, yet in actual practice it works out at something like 25 or 30 per cent., and where the rates are 20s. in the £ it is impossible for local authorities to add to their burdens.
I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to see whether he cannot persuade the Government to give more generous assistance to local authorities who are prepared to carry on the work. The relief work to which we allude is not work of a non-useful character, but includes road-making, harbours, docks, sewage schemes, afforestation and reclamation of foreshore—all things which tend to produce valuable assets in years to come. In conclusion, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will say something as to the Committee dealing with necessitous areas. I have shown how unequal are the burdens borne by different parts of the country and provided adequate safeguards can be devised, as I think they can, there is a very sound case for further assistance from the Treasury.

Sir GEORGE HUME: I feel that on a Motion of this kind it is impossible to give a silent vote. I know many hon. Members on the other side of the House are extremely devoted to their local government duties. Many of them have spent their lives in that work. Reading this Motion, I would like to issue a word of warning to them—that the more the State is brought into local affairs the greater will be the control of the State over them. To those of us who desire to see local government affairs carried on with as great a degree of independence as possible; to those of us who are opposed to the French Prefet system under which the central government gets its finger deeply into local government affairs, it is a matter of extreme anxiety to see demands being made for wholesale assistance from the State for local purposes. No one sympathises more than I do with the needs of the necessitous areas, but I venture to say to my friends on the other side that the country would feel much more concerned about the difficulties they have to face if they would show a little more responsibility in the way in which they face them. In areas such as those we are dealing with, where the weight of local taxation is crushing in the extreme, and is driving
out industries, great care should be taken to see that the relief given is not higher than the wages which can be earned. I venture to say these few words, and to explain in that way why I cannot support the Motion.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I am quite sure hon. Members in all parts of the House will fee in general agreement with at least one principle enunciated by the last speaker, which is that we are all anxious to preserve the independence of our local administration, but there is another independence which is perhaps even more important, and that is independence of the curse of poverty. If the hon. Gentleman could only assure us that he has some method whereby we can be relieved of this awful burden otherwise than through Government help, we should be heartily glad to accept any suggestions he made. The problem we have before us to-night has been one which has provided a pretty constant challenge to successive Ministers of Health and Labour in all parties. It has been indicated that it may be that the hon. Gentleman who replies to this Debate may invite us to define in somewhat specific terms what precisely we mean by the phrase "necessitous areas." I confess it is not easy to give a precise legal definition of that term, but although it is not easy to define, I think I may say it is not a difficult thing to describe its accompanying phenomena. There are in all these areas overcrowding which is rampant, numerous insanitary buildings; they are burdened with debts and harassed by disease, and their economic resources are diminishing while civic and municipal responsibilities are increasing. I think those characteristics apply to all the areas which you might call necessitous areas. So obvious are these phenomena in connection with necessitous areas that we have put down on the Order Paper this Motion. I will paraphrase a famous dictum which says:
The burdens of necessitous areas have increased, are increasing, and ought to be diminished.
There are three types of local authorities with which we are all familiar, judged of course by their economic conditions. First of all, there is the type like Bournemouth and places of that sort, where the rates are extremely low compared with other areas, where they are entirely unacquainted with the
problem of unemployment as other areas are acquainted with it, where they do not know poverty as cities and towns of other parts of the country know it, and where the local and administrative problems are fundamentally different from other authorities.
The second type of local authority is one where the burdens are increasing, but where they are still within measurable control by those in charge of local government work. The third type is that with which we are concerned here to-night, and we suggest that the condition of this third type of local authority is such as to merit the special consideration of the Government, on account of their exceptional difficulties. May I take, by way of illustration and not by way of suggestion, one particular area. I do not take it because it is exceptional and distinct from other areas which might be equally well cited with this one, but I take it in order to examine the incidence of local taxation and its effect upon local government. The area I mean is the South Wales coalfield. There you have an area, an economic area, which is homogeneous in character for all practical purposes. There are those who discuss this coalfield who suggest that industrially it has reached its zenith in the way of development. There are on every hand evidences of pits closing with consequences which I would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider very carefuly. The consequences of closing pits is a tremendous reduction in the assessable value of the areas in which they are to be found. The consequence of that great reduction in assessable value is that the local authorities are unable to secure for themselves adequate rates for their own immediate purposes, and they are forced to fall back upon the expedient of borrowing, an expedient which I think the representative of the Government will agree is pernicious in its effect, grave in its consequences, and which in fact loads succeeding generations with a burden which they ought not to be called upon to bear.
In order to illustrate my point I will take an area well known to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. I mean the Bedwellty area. I will give two figures which show precisely what we mean by a necessitous area. In Bedwellty in the year 1914 the outdoor relief trade was £351 per week or £18,250
per annum. In the year 1925 that figure of £351 per week had amounted up to the colossal sum of £3,200 per week or £166,400 per annum as against £18,000 in 1914. In 1921 there were 39,868 persons receiving outdoor relief at the cost of £11,029 and that meant that the total population was roughly 140,000. Since 1st October last year the outdoor relief has amounted to £4,494 per week or £223,000 per annum. Those figures are eloquent on the distressing condition in which some of these South Wales areas now find themselves. Perhaps I can put it in another way. For the half-year ended March, 1924, the poor rate in this particular union stood at the figure of 3s. in the £; but for the half-year ended March, 1925, the same poor rate stood at 5s. 4d. in the £, and I think I can show to the House that a good deal of that extra figure, that is the difference between the two rates, is made up exclusively, or almost exclusively, by the added burdens which have fallen upon the shoulders of the local authority by reason of the unemployment prevalent in that area. It is an exceptional burden, and not the normal burden with which all local authorities had to cope in the days preceding the War.
I could carry on that examination a little more particularly, and, if the House will allow me, I should like to take one section of the Bedwellty urban area in order to show the effect upon all types of the population. Taking, first of all, the closing of pits in that area, and the coming of unemployment, on the 31st March, 1921, the total assessable value of the collieries in that area was £183,000 odd. In this union there is a parish called Aberystruth, which includes the Blaina and Nantyglo area, and the figures in connection with this parish are, indeed, staggering. The total population is 16,000, and, of those 16,000, 13,175 persons were receiving relief during the year 1921–22, at a weekly cost of £3,612. Let us examine what that burden means to this area. Before the collieries were closed, that is to say, when employment was still normal, the collieries were assessed at £20,000 odd. That was in September, 1920. In September, 1922, the assessable value of those collieries had been reduced to only £4,818, and that area carried upon its
local poor rate, for outdoor relief, 13,175 persons out of a total population of 16,453.
May I show how it affects the local authorities in another way? Poverty, obviously, enters into this area, and not only are the ordinary people hit who themselves receive relief, but the business man is also hit. Let me give a few figures. The percentage of rates collected in this area in 1920 was 90 per cent. In April, 1924, the percentage of rates collected had declined to the extraordinary figure of 23 per cent. The local authority, therefore, is crippled in every way. It loses its assessable value, pits are closed, railways appeal for a reduction of their assessment; the business people become poor, and the ordinary people are on the poor rate. The result is that, because of the abnormal and exceptional condition of poverty prevailing in the area, they simply cannot get in the rates demanded. I want to put this further point. If the local authorities could only feel that this condition of affairs was static, there would be some sort of satisfaction, poor though it is; but that is not so. The fact is that these areas are getting into a worse and worse condition.
Let me give this figure to the hon. Gentleman, to show what has been the effect upon the local area of the withdrawal of unemployment benefit. The out-relief—this is on the statement of an official of the local union—has been increased by £30,000 per annum in consequence of the discontinuance of payment of unemployment benefit. That is exclusive of the cost of maintenance of a large number of men who entered the workhouse in consequence of the discontinuance of unemployment benefit. Therefore, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, if it is going to be the policy of the Government not merely not to help these authorities by way of a grant, but, worse, to depress their condition further by adding to the burdens they were previously called upon to bear, then, obviously, we cannot be very far from a condition of affairs in which local government in these areas must necessarily break down. I want to quote a phrase from an introductory letter written by the Minister of Health to the Municipal Year Book of 1925. He says:
Not only have new services been added to the duties of local authorities, but old services have been vastly extended, and the end is not yet. The work which local authorities will be called upon to perform is likely to be increased, not reduced.
I ask the hon. entleman, if the end is not yet, if we are still to expect these local authorities to have new burdens cast upon them as is foreshadowed in this quotation—

Sir K. WOOD: New services.

Mr. JONES: New services involve new burdens surely. You cannot have services without burdens, at least I have never seen them up to now. Still the hon. Gentleman may be able to give us a revelation in that manner. If we are to understand that these new services are to be foisted upon the local authorities, involving new burdens, obviously some aid must come from somewhere other than the aid which we now are familiar with.
I have quoted at some length figures indicating the condition of affairs in one particular area, but that condition of affairs applies to a large number of areas throughout the country. May I give one or two figures in this way? I believe it is calculated that there are something round about 90 authorities which might with fairness be regarded as necessitous areas. If we take those 90 authorities, exclusive of the London unions, we discover that their total aggregate population amounts to about 33 per cent. of the population of England and Wales. The area in which that third of the population lives has a total aggregate rateable value equivalent to about 27.8 per cent. of the whole of England and Wales, but their net expenditure amounts to about 42.7 per cent. of the whole of the authorities of England and Wales. It is obvious that a population which is one-third of the whole of the country which has resources not equivalent to one-third, but less than one-third, and which bears a burden which is more than four-tenths of the total burden is in a condition which entitles it to receive special consideration and treatment. Put the comparison in another way. The aggregate expenditure in the 90 areas amounts to about 4s. 1d. in the £ covering the whole lot, but if you take up the average for the whole of the country it only amounts to 2s. 7¾d., so
that these areas are in fact carrying a burden which is quite exceptional and which makes them in fact necessitous areas.
Take another test if you like. The average expenditure per unit of the population in these areas amounts to £1 1s. 5d. per head, as against 16s. 7d. spread over the whole of the country. The machinery of local government surely was never devised nor intended to bear this undue and unusual strain. It was only intended to bear a normal strain and a normal expenditure. This is abnormal, and therefore it has a peculiar and well ascertainable case in favour of exceptional treatment along some line or another.
Time will not permit me to examine the various suggestions that have been made for dealing with this problem. There are four or five suggestions. One suggestion favours a grant to the necessitous areas on the basis of necessity in connection with employment, something like the necessitous areas grant given in connection with the education department. A second suggestion is that there might be something approximating to equalisation of rates. I am not prepared to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to declare that he is in favour of equalisation of rates at this juncture. I know that is a very big problem, that it is complicated and that it must involve a tremendous amount of time and attention being given to it before it can be adumbrated. But could we not advance a claim at the same time for treatment of this problem on the lines of some sort of makeshift, as is applied in the case of the London Poor Law areas, and bring forward some form of equalisation in that direction?
There has recently been put before the local authorities what is called the West Ham scheme. That scheme has the merit that it does not take from these necessitous areas entirely the burdens which they are called upon to bear, even though they are exceptional, but it has the merit of seeking to take away a certain proportion of the unusual and extraordinary burden. It has the further merit of casting that burden upon the shoulders of all rather than upon the shoulders of the few. There is a last suggestion, namely, the creation of some sort of common fund to which the authorities
throughout the country would contribute and upon which the necessitous areas would be able to make calls from time to time. I am not defending one suggestion against any other of these suggestions.
We have had discussions over and over again on this question of necessitous areas. A Committee have been sitting on the matter, and I understand that very valuable evidence has been adduced before that Committee. I would ask my hon. Friend, therefore, one or two specific questions. First, do the Government admit the existence of a case for the necessitous areas as we have tried to argue here to-night? Do they admit that there is such a case, or are we to assume that they regard these burdens as burdens which fall upon these areas in the natural evolution of things and do not call for exceptional treatment. If the Government accord to us that principle, have the Government any scheme to propound whereby these exceptional burdens shall be shared amongst the local authorities of the country?
There are four suggestions in the field, and I am not championing one against another, but there is a fifth alternative, and that is the policy of drift. The policy of drift is dangerous, it is full of menace to the wellbeing of the local authorities, and it is full of danger to the State as a whole. The local authorities have borne burdens for long years with courage, with remarkable devotion and with a self-sacrifice in the public service which entitles them to ask the Government to consider their position seriously and sympathetically and with no long delay. I ask my hon. Friend, therefore, to give me an answer on the lines of another quotation which his right hon. Friend indicated in the letter to which I have referred:
That is the problem. It is not only the comforts and amenities of life that depend upon the services rendered by local authorities, but also in no small measure life itself.
That is the opinion of his old chief. It is life itself, and because it involves human values we invite the right hon. Gentleman to give us a full and sympathetic answer to the Motion.

Sir K. WOOD: rose—

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. May I ask if there is a country known as Scotland, which is interested in this question? Is there to be no speech from any Member from Scotland, and no one on the Front Bench opposite representing Scotland? I think it a shocking thing that on a question such as this a place like the Clyde should have no say, and that there should be no Scottish Member of the Government on the Front Bench.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must settle that with his own Front Bench.

Sir K. WOOD: I will shorten my remarks in order to allow hon. Members for Scotland to have a word in this Debate. We have heard a familiar case to-night put with a considerable amount of force, and I have not the least doubt with sincerity by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) and the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne). It is well that we should have regard to the terms of the Motion which the House is being asked to pass. It is to give special consideration and special assistance to necessitous areas in consequence, as it says, of bad trade and unemployment. In other words, it asks the House by way of Resolution to pick out certain authorities up and down the country and afford them special treatment. I am very glad indeed to see on the Front Opposition bench this evening the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour in the last Labour Government. They will agree with me when I say that the claims of necessitous areas have Feen considered by every Government since 1920, and none of them have been satisfied either that special assistance would be justified in principle or, even if assistance could be justified, that a fair and equitable distribution could be devised.
This is no new matter. When I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) to-night, his speech seemed to me to have a very familiar ring about it. He talked about the dreadful conditions of these areas and the special consideration that should be paid to them. Sentiments of that kind we all agree with. I wonder if he recalled a speech made himself on a similar occasion in 1924, when the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T.
Thomson) made an appeal and the Minister of Labour said very much to him what the Minister of Health has to say to him to-night. He made a reply on that occasion which I might very well make to the House to-night. He said that as regards the statement made by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough
He has submitted one or two points that I think carry further than he gives them credit for. If the Government once accept the principle of paying for ordinary municipal work out of the taxpayers' money, I am afraid that, though we may have an almost bottomless purse, the bottom of that purse will be found. It is impossible for any Government to look with equanimity at a proposal for paying for the ordinary work of the corporations out of the taxes. The position that confronts the Government is rather a difficult and delicate one. After three or four years of acceleration of work, the time has come when it is getting more and more difficult to find work to accelerate. The special schemes which might have been postponed for five or ten years have nearly all been carried out, but in spite of that the work at present going on is work that normally would not have been done had there been no Government grant at all. Then there is the difficulty when one tries to discriminate between one authority or another. Discrimination, in the view of the Government, after careful consideration, would in practice be most difficult, and we have come to the conclusion that whatever terms probably are offered, those terms must apply to approved schemes from all the municipalities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th August, 1924; col. 2572, Vol. 176.]
Therefore, so far as the Minister of Labour in the Labour Government was concerned on that occasion, he was not prepared to discriminate between necessitous and other areas.

Mr. SHAW: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me, for the sake of clarity, what that has to do with the Motion?

Sir K. WOOD: I am trying to explain. The right hon. Gentleman was requested to do what I am requested to do, to advise the House to make a distinction between necessitous areas and others, and, as he justly replied on that occasion, there is a difficulty when one tries to discriminate between one authority and another—"discrimination in the view of the Government, after careful consideration, would, in practice, be most difficult," and he had come to the conclusion that, "whatever terms probably are offered, those terms must apply to approved schemes from all the municipalities."

Mr. J. JONES: Would the hon. Gentleman read out the Resolution that was moved during the Debate that evening?

Sir K. WOOD: There was no Resolution. This was the reply of the then Minister of Labour to a request by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough. The only point which I desire to make is that it is certainly most difficult to make a discrimination between one authority, which we might call necessitous, and another authority. What is the other difficulty that we have to avoid? It is that, in assisting these necessitous areas and giving them the relief referred to, we may very well be taking away from trade and industry that capital which is so necessary at the present time, and which, if properly applied, might give the very remedy to those very necessitous areas that is so necessary. The right hon. Gentleman the present Leader of the Opposition pointed that out in the very first speech which he made in the House of Commons as Prime Minister. He said, on 12th Febuary, 1924:
I wish to make it perfectly clear that the Government have no intention of drawing off from the normal channels of trade large sums for extemporised measures which can only be palliatives."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1924; col. 760, Vol. 169.]
That is a very sound doctrine, and when we are requested to make special grants to necessitous areas we must have regard to that consideration. The hon. Member who so ably moved the Resolution asked me certain questions, particularly in relation to what had been done and what had already been spent. I can say without fear of contradiction that, taking the country as a whole, no other country in the world has made such an effort to deal with the difficulties which have been put forward to-night. Taking the amounts spent in schemes of post-War settlement, such as the out-of-work donation, the grants for resettlement in civil life, and the training of demobilised officers and men, I find the approximate Exchequer contribution between the Armistice and 31st March next amounts to no less than £104,250,000. I find that, in respect of unemployment insurance, the Exchequer contribution alone for the same period will have amounted to £66,250,000. I was asked about the Unemployment Grants Committee. I find that £7,500,000 is the contribution of the Exchequer in respect
of schemes already approved by the Committee.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Between what dates?

Sir K. WOOD: From the inauguration of the scheme to 31st March next. If we add together all these items and also expenditure such as that for land settlement and schemes under the Ministry of Transport, there is a total approximate Exchequer contribution of no less than £212,750,000, and the total approximate value of the schemes since the Armistice—which of course these necessitous areas share—amounts to the colossal figure of £550,750,000.

Mr. HAYDAY: What I ask for was, not alone the Exchequer grant, but the amount spent by the local authorities without aid out of the rates.

Sir K. WOOD: The contribution of the Exchequer was £212,750,000, and if the hon. Member deducts that sum from the total of £550,750,000, I think he will get the figure he wants.

Mr. J. JONES: Does that include loans?

Sir K. WOOD: I will deal with loans in a moment. As between the National Exchequer and the local authorities I submit the figures I have quoted show that the arrangement has not been unfair. My point is that if, as the Mover said, we want to have a true picture of the state of affairs all over the country, we must have regard to the considerable sacrifices made on behalf of the great mass of the people in the contributions which have already been made. The hon. Member in this Resolution says that the extra expenditure in regard to these areas should be a national charge. The first answer I would make is that at any rate the bulk of the considerable expenditure on public assistance and social services is spread over the country as a whole. Exclusive of War pensions and the expenditure on unemployment works, the cost of public social services, including education, is over £230,000,000 a year in England and Wales, and of that sum all but £75,000,000 is charged on the country as a whole.
In other words, out of £230,000,000, £75,000,000 only is contributed by the rates, and the balance is charged on the
country as a whole, either by taxation or through contributions paid by employed persons or their employers. In addition to that, there is another burden which is now taken by the country as a whole in connection with widows' pensions, which will add in 1926 another £10,000,000 to the total, the whole of which is to be charged on the country as a whole. Not only so, but the expenditure will undoubtedly give considerable relief to the rates in the industrial areas. Therefore, I think it is only fair, as I am sure hon. Members opposite will agree, that we should have regard to the very considerable portion of the cost of the social services which is borne by the National Exchequer, and it is a right and fair thing, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the late Government knew full well, that when we are asked to shoulder still further national burdens in respect of particular localities, we should have regard to what has been done.
I want the House to visualise the position from the point of view of the Minister of Health in regard to the particular areas to which the hon. Gentleman has referred—I will take three of them, which have recently made applications to the Minister for further facilities—and to have regard, if they will, to the duties and responsibilities of my right hon. Friend in dealing with such applications. East Ham recently applied to the Minister for a scheme for the purchase of land for the purpose of a recreation ground. They wanted £8,160. Why did we refuse it? We refused it on the ground of the high rates, which are, I may say, 23s. 5d. in the £. I venture to say to hon. Members opposite that, if they were in office, they would have very great difficulty in sanctioning an expenditure of that kind. Take the position of Maesteg. They have asked only a small amount, for the alteration of the town hall, but we have refused it, because the rates there are 22s. in the £, and they have great difficulty in meeting expenditure out of revenue. I will weary the House with one further example. Take Merthyr Tydvil. They have recently asked for the sum of £14,000 for the erection of a central library, and we again have had to decline it. The rates in that area are 26s. in the £, and there are large arrears of rates, I am sorry to say, while I also regret that the industrial position
of the district makes the financial position of the local authority most unsatisfactory.

Mr. BARNES: Must we take it from the figures given by the hon. Gentleman that, in addition to the localities carrying national charges, the Government are now proposing to prevent the development of local schemes?

Sir K. WOOD: What I am endeavouring to point out are the difficulties in these cases, which are difficulties that were recognised by the late Minister of Labour, who, so far as his term of office was concerned, was unable to do anything specially for necessitous areas. A question was asked about loans, the particular rate of interest charged, and the term of the loan itself. Loans amounting in all to £8,845,000 have been sanctioned in England and Wales since 1921. We have heard a good deal to-night about the difficulties of local authorities and what has been said is perfectly true. But it should be said that they are confined, as my hon. Friend quite fairly said, to a very small number. Slightly over £4,000,000 was outstanding on the 30th September last. Advances by way of loan are made by the Exchequer on the recommendation of the Goschen Committee, who also advise on what terms and conditions the advances should be made. The period of repayment varies from three to ten years, and interest is fixed at the prevailing rate for loans of the same currency. The Committee have power, in exceptional cases, to recommend that repayment of instalments of principal and/or the payment of interest should be postponed for a period not exceeding three years. In all, in Great Britain, £4,982,000 has been advanced by the two Departments concerned upon the recommendation of the Goschen Committee, of which £598,000 has been repaid, leaving £4,000,000 odd still outstanding.
The bulk of the poor law authorities are able to borrow in the ordinary way without recourse to the Goschen Committee, and advances by the Government have only been required in the case of eight authorities in England and Wales and 12 authorities in Scotland. In 12 cases repayment of instalments of principal has been postponed. In seven cases payment of
interest as well as repayment of instalments of principal has been postponed as well.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: How many in Wales?

Sir K. WOOD: I have not got the figures for Wales.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: They are always mixed up with England.

Sir K. WOOD: I will endeavour to make the distinction on another occasion. That adds to the picture which has been painted by the hon. Member opposite. It is perfectly true they should have regard to what the hon. Gentleman said. I do not for a moment minimise the unfortunate position of many of those districts. We have a great deal of sympathy with them. I think most people would reject—at any rate, if they had to decide this matter for themselves—the question of making all these additional charges in necessitous areas to be borne solely by the National Exchequer. A formula, which would be fair to the State and fair to other local authorities and which would be able to render real assistance to the localities which are suffering so heavily at the present time, is a very difficult one. I felt almost bound to make another quotation when I heard the rather unexpected intervention of the former Minister of Labour to-night.
I could quote to the House a statement which was made almost about the same period with regard to the suggestion of a formula for assisting necessitous areas. The speaker for the Ministry of Labour in the Labour Government said he regretted very much that they could not find a formula which would be fair to the local authorities and would really meet the situation. The conclusion that was come to on that occasion—and I do not know whether it is not still right—was that the best way of assisting these necessitous areas was by promoting good trade and business in the country generally. Since then, as the House knows, a deputation from those areas has waited upon the Prime Minister, and, as a result, an expert Committee has been appointed, under the chairmanship of Sir Harry Goschen, and the reference to that Committee is:
To consider and report on any scheme which may be submitted to them for special
assistance from the Exchequer to local authorities in necessitous urban and quasi-urban areas.
The Committee have sat, and have had several meetings already, and they have had before them four or five of these schemes. There is the scheme known as the West Ham scheme, upon which the hon. Member who seconded this Motion gave evidence. Then there has been a scheme prepared by the Guardians of the City of London Union. There is another scheme submitted by the West Bromwich Board of Guardians, and, finally, there is the scheme submitted to the Minister of Health prior to the setting up of the Committee by the hon. Member opposite who sits for one of the Sheffield Divisions.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Has there been any scheme from Monmouthshire?

Sir K. WOOD: In addition, the Committee have received other schemes which are rather indefinite in nature. I do not think it would come from Monmouthshire. At any rate, they are considering all practical suggestions that are put before them. It is not anticipated that there will be any delay in their Report. The main schemes put before the Com-

mittee all deal with assistance to poor law authorities. The Committee are proceeding with their task as rapidly as possible, and hope to be in a position to submit their Report to the Prime Minister at an early date. Whether that Committee will be successful where others have failed, I do not know, but I think, having regard to the steps the Government have taken, there is no necessity to-night to pass this Resolution, to which I certainly would not advise the House to subscribe, and I hope, having regard to the terms of my reply, the hon. Gentleman will not press this Motion.

Mr. HAYDAY: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly,
That, in the opinion of this House, the extra expenditure imposed upon local authorities in Necessitous Areas in consequence of bad trade and unemployment is an intolerable and unjust burden upon the ratepayers in these areas and ought to be made a national charge.

The House divided: Ayes, 127; Noes, 241.

Division No. 59.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Greenall, T.
Maxton, James


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Montague, Frederick


Ammon, Charles George
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison. R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth. Pontypool)
Naylor, T. E.


Baker, Walter
Groves, T.
Palin, John Henry


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.


Barr, J.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan)


Batey, Joseph
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Potts, John S.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hardie, George D.
Radford, E. A.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Broad, F. A.
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Riley, Ben


Bromfield, William
Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Bromley, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Rose, Frank H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scrymgeour, E.


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sexton, James


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Clowes, S.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Cluse, W. S.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Sitch, Charles H.


Compton, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Connolly, M.
Jones. T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)


Cove, W. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dalton, Hugh
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kirkwood, D.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, George
Stamford, T. W.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lawson, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Duncan, C.
Lindley, F. W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Dunnico, H.
Lowth, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Unlver.)
Lunn, William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Fenby, T. D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mackinder, W.
Thurtie, E.


Gibbins, Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew
Tinker, John Joseph


Gillett, George M.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Townend, A. E.


Gosling, Harry
March, S.
Varley, Frank B.


Viant, S. P.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Wright, W.


Wallhead. Richard C.
Whiteley, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Wiggins, William Martin



Warne, G. H.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A. Barnes.


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermllne)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)



Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)



Westwood, J.
Windsor, Walter



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Everard, W. Lindsay
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Albery, Irving James
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Macintyre, I.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fermoy, Lord
McLean, Major A.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)
Fielden, E. B.
McNeill, Rt. Hon Ronald John


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Macqulsten, F. A.


Apsley, Lord
Forrest, W.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Astor, Viscountess
Fraser, Captain Ian
Margesson, Captain D.


Atholl, Duchess of
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Merriman, F. B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Balniel, Lord
Ganzonl, Sir John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gates, Percy
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Cllve


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Murchison, C. K.


Bethell, A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nail, Lleut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Betterton, Henry B.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Neville, R. J.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Goff, Sir Park
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Gower, Sir Robert
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Blundell, F. N.
Grace, John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Grant, J. A.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Gretton, Colonel John
Nuttall, Ellis


Brass, Captain W.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Gunston, Captain D. W.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cllve
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Owen, Major G.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Penny, Frederick George


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hammersley, S. S.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hanbury, C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Brawn, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hartington, Marquess of
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Buckingham, Sir H.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bullock, Captain M.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Raine, W.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Haslam, Henry C.
Ramsden, E.


Burman, J. B.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Remer, J. R.


Gadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rentoul, G. S.


Campbell, E. T.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Ropnor, Major L.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Salmon, Major 1.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hills, Major John Waller
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. Q.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Sandeman. A. Stewart


Christie, J. A.
Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Clarry, Reginald George
Homan, C. W. J.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Corkerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sandon, Lord


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Savery, S. S.


Cope, Major William
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew W)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hurd, Percy A.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Illffe. Sir Edward M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne, C.)


Crookshank, Col C. de W. (Berwick)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith-Carlngton, Neville W.


crooksnank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Smithers, Waldron


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Jacob, A. E.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Jephcott, A. R.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Stanley, col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stanley. Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
King. Caotain Henry Douglas
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Looker, Herbert William
Tinne, J. A.


Eiveden, Viscount.
Lougher, L.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


England, Colonel A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lumley, L. R.
Waddington, R.




Wallace, Captain D. E.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Womersley, W. J.


Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Warrender, Sir Victor
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Watts, Dr. T.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Wells, S. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Wise, Sir Fredric
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple
Withers, John James



Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Wolmer, Viscount
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord Stanley and Captain Bowyer.


Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

EX-SERVICE MEN (ARTIFICIAL LIMBS).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to raise an issue with the Minister of Pensions. I know that many questions are put to the Minister, but I do not apologise for raising this subject. It is a question of which I have given notice before, and I also wish to raise the case of a pensioner in regard to which I have not given notice, and I hope to extract a reply from the Minister. In regard to the first case, I have been requested by an association which deals with the limbless ex-service men in Scotland to raise this question. In Glasgow shortly after the War these limbless ex-service men decided to form an association, and only those were eligible who had lost a limb in the War. There were many reasons for the formation of an association of that kind, and with one or two exceptions these limbless ex-service men have been able to keep going all these years in a very creditable fashion. Hitherto they have had no great cause for complaint against the Ministry of Pensions in regard to the limbs supplied to them, and with the exception of some minor complaints the commodities supplied were of fairly good workmanship and met their needs in an excellent fashion. Less than 12 months ago the Minister of Pensions, in his wisdom, decided to reduce the number of limb makers from 14 to two. Until that order was given there were 14 firms who competed with one another and were eligible to make limbs for ex-service men. Since then the number has been reduced from 14 to two. It is rather curious, if my information is collect, but it is what I have been told by limbless ex-service men, that the number has been reduced from 14 to two, and the only two left

happen to be the only two non-British firms amongst the 14.

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): indicated dissent.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but this information which I have given to the House has been sent to me by the secretary to the Limbless Ex-Service Men's Association. One of these firms is named Hangaer, a Yankee firm, and the other is a Belgian firm. These limbless ex-service men have asked me why a Government that asks us to buy British goods has cut down the number of firms from 14 to two, and has left only two firms of foreign connection on the list to still continue making those limbs. These ex-service men are simple men, but they want an answer as to why this has been done. The Minister may tell me that these two firms make limbs superior to those made by the other 12, but I would like to know how many complaints he has received from limbless ex-service men against the firms who formerly made these limbs.
So far as the limbless ex-service men in Scotland were concerned, they were well satisfied with the limbs they got from the firms both in Scotland and in England, and, after all, they are the best judges; they have to use the limbs, and they are the persons who have to suffer for their inadequacy or lack of workmanship. Their test is that of actual practice, and they are better able to judge than many Members of this House, with the exception of those who, unfortunately, also have to use such limbs. They are unanimously of opinion that the limbs they received before the number of firms was reduced to two were at least as good as, and in some cases actually better than, the limbs they are now receiving from the foreign firms. In one case, at least, they say that limbless ex-service men were employed by the firms who have been knocked off from making the limbs, and they want to know why the work should be given to foreign firms,
or, at least, why the names of the two firms left on are obviously foreign; whether any part of the work is done abroad, and if so what part; and why firms that employ limbless ex-service men should be knocked off from doing that work. I put these questions on behalf of these people.
I have only one other point to raise, and that is in connection with a pension case which I have already previously raised. It is that of a woman named Mrs. Dochan, who lives in my constituency. Her husband died in Bella-houston Hospital, which is under the control of the Ministry of Pensions. He was in receipt of a pension of over £1 a week at the time of his death. When he died, the doctor in charge of the hospital approached Mrs. Dochan and asked that a post-mortem examination might be held. She refused at first, but consulted her own local doctor, who advised her, in the interest of possibly saving another man's life, to allow her husband's body to be cut up. The doctor at Bellahouston hospital informed her that nothing would be used in evidence against her that was found after the man was cut up. She could have refused, but she gave permission to allow the man to be cut up, and after he was cut up certain defective organs were found in his body; and now, after having given the promise I have referred to, they are using the evidence which they said they would not use, to keep the woman from receiving a pension. To me it is miserable that a woman who could have refused this permission, and by refusing it could have been receiving her pension to-day, is, having given that permission on the faith of certain promises, deliberately cut off from a pension. To my mind it is shameful and wrong. In this case I do not ask for a reply now from the Minister, but I hope he will go into the circumstances, and, if it be humanly possible, have them reviewed. I would, however, ask for a reply in regard to the limbless ex-service men.

Major TRYON: I much appreciate the fact that the hon. Member so fairly concedes that it is not fair to expect me to make a reply on an individual case without notice, and I can assure him that I not only appreciate that very fair attitude, but that I shall, of course, inquire into the points he has put forward with
reference to that individual case. On the question of limbs, the hon. Member said that he could find no reason for what had happened. If the hon. Member had read the Report of the Committee, which has been already discussed in this House, or some of the early Debates which took place on this subject, he would have been better informed. The position is quite simple. The previous contracts were coming to an end, and the Ministry found themselves faced with a combination or ring of firms who were refusing to tender under the previous conditions. Therefore, the hon. Member, I am sure quite unconsciously, finds himself fighting the battle of a number of capitalists who have formed a ring against the Government.

Mr. KENNEDY: May I ask whether the two firms mentioned by my hon. Friend were not included in the combine?

Major TRYON: I understand that they were, but we were not concerned with the formation of the ring. Our duty did not lie in that direction; our business is to see what we can do to secure the best limbs possible, and the best contracts in the interests of the ex-service men. Faced with that position, we asked a Committee to go into the matter, and I would like again to express the debt that I think the country and the ex-service men owe to all those who sat on that Committee, particularly to the Chairman, the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir Godfrey Collins), and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fairfield (Major Cohen)—I am sorry he is not here because I would have been glad of an opportunity to thank him for the service he has rendered in this connection to the Ministry and the ex-service men.
The hon. Member implied that the Committee were not in a position to judge well about the position of men who have lost their limbs. I think, perhaps, if he had known that the hon. and gallant Member for Fairfield was on the Committee, he would not have made that remark. There were also representatives of what we call in the Ministry "other ranks"—other disabled men—on the Committee. Our difficulty was not only that this ring was refusing to tender, but that they were standing out against a very important point which affects the interests of ex-service men. It is enormously to the advantage of the disabled that some
form of words should appear in the contract involving maintenance responsibility on the part of the firms concerned, because if a firm knows that it has not only to make limbs which will be passed but that it is to be responsible for the maintenance of those limbs for a considerable period afterwards, that firm is much more likely to be very careful of the materials and workmanship which they put into the limbs.
Therefore, it is very important to secure for ex-service men maintenance clauses for their special protection. Thanks to the recommendation of this Committee, we have been able to get two very good types of limbs, and to get them with a maintenance clause, which is of such value. The action the Ministry took was to adopt the recommendation of a Committee which reported unanimously in favour of the course we took, and it has not only resulted in the saving of a very large sum of money, but, what is more important, it has secured from the firms a maintenance clause which makes those firms responsible for a period of years for the limbs they supply. I have myself seen firms who got left out and tried to get ex-service men to make complaints to the Ministry, but I find the impulse in that case came rather from the unsuccessful firms than, as far as I could see, from the men themselves.

Mr. KENNEDY: Unsuccessful firms?

Major TRYON: The firms that did not get the contracts.

Mr. KENNEDY: They were not allowed to tender.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Does the Minister suggest that these limbless ex-servicemen were making complaints that were prompted by the unsuccessful firms?

Major TRYON: I am not alleging that that particular association was, but I have seen letters from firms to ex-service men to that effect, asking them to complain. The hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench has altogether missed the point. We threw this thing open to free competition. The hon. Gentleman is entirely inaccurate. It is because the combined firms refused to tender that we were put into this difficulty.

Mr. KENNEDY: Does the right hon. Gentleman allege that all the firms that formerly supplied limbs were prompted to tender on the basis of the conditions on which the present contracts are held?

Major TRYON: No; what the firms did was to refuse to tender when they might have done so, and when they might, any one of them, have got the contract. We were in the position of no longer being faced with free competition from a number of competing firms, but we were faced with a combination against us, and I am very much astonished that the hon. Member should find himself allied with firms who make a combination against the Government.

Mr. KENNEDY: I was stating facts.

Major TRYON: The hon. Member was not stating facts. The fact is that these firms were given every opportunity of competing, but they formed a combination, and in combination they refused to tender. Under the circumstances, the Government did not of its own initiative take action, but they appointed a committee which included representatives of ex-service men, and that committee made a unanimous report and on the strength of that unanimous report the Government took action. My information is that these firms are manufacturing the limbs in this country. My further information is that the limbs supplied are quite excellent. It is not the films who formed a combination against the Government who should complain of the absence of free competition.

Mr. BUCHANAN: One of the firms is a Yankee firm and the other is a Belgium firm. Is it not the fact that the names of the firms are as I have stated?

Major TRYON: The hon. Member is probably not aware that these firms were under the previous contract supplying 90 per cent. of the limbs. There was no change from one set of British firms to foreign firms, because, as I have stated, these two firms were previously supplying 90 per cent. of the limbs. I understand that they are entirely manufactured in this country, and if any part of the limb comes from abroad, I am not prepared on behalf of the ex-service men to exclude any part of an excellent limb which may come from abroad. These
firms made 90 per cent. of the limbs and the Committee were unanimous as to the excellence of the limbs supplied.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the 18 were eliminated and the two were chosen? What method was adopted?

Major TRYON: I think the hon. and gallant Member would do well if he would read the very excellent Report of the Committee which was presided over with great ability by his own Chief Whip. It was on that recommendation that the arrangements were made to enter into the contract with these two big firms.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I have read the Report, but I do not think the Report states by what method these two firms were chosen. That is the information I would like to have.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Is it not a fact that the two firms who were chosen were formerly in the combination, and then they went behind the backs of the combination of which they had formed part, and blacklegged by sending in tenders and obtained an order from the Government, when they had pledged themselves to the others in the "ring" that they would not do so?

Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the specific point put to him by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan)? The question is not whether the things are manufactured in this country. The question is, are these two firms foreign firms, and is it the case, as he seems to imply, that the Government, representing the organised power of the State, have absolutely no defence against a little group of capitalists, who may threaten to hold them by the throat, other than giving the contract to some foreign competitors?

Major TRYON: It is not the case that we called in a foreign group. We were faced with this combination of firms and we said that we could not allow them to make a kind of corner against the Government. We appointed the Committee, and we took the advice of the Committee and we gave an order for excellent types of limbs and thus secured a boon for the disabled ex-service men.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.